| < February 27 | March 1 > |
|---|
February 28
Category:Pseudonymous sportspeople
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is a notable intersection. Who knows how many sportspeople have changed their names before going into professional play (we actually have a list at List_of_pseudonyms#Sportspeople). Obviously, all pro wrestlers would be in this category, but it's quite possible many other competitors have a "competition" name. I can see the value of this for writers and artists, who publish work, sometimes under a different name, in order to mask their persona, tell a different story, etc, but I see little value in this intersection for sportspeople (I would likely feel similarly about the many pseudonyms used by musicians, actors, etc). Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Whatever. I was tidying up Category:Pseudonyms because it was starting to fill up with sports folk when it's not a category for individual articles. You can tidy as you see fit as long as they're not just dumped back in. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This is categorization by the nature of a name, not by anything about the person themselves. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as this appears to be categorizing by a characteristic of the article title (whether real name or pseudonym has been chosen as the title) (despite what the category text says) rather than by a characteristic of the article subject (i.e. the person). Whether a person has had a pseudonym (or not) is not a suitable characteristic for categorization. The Ring name article should be upmerged to Category:Pseudonyms. See also the inclusion criteria at Category:Pseudonyms. That category and the other subcats should also be purged/deleted/upmerged.
- Note: It may be appropriate for some people to be categorized under both their real name and their pseudonym (see
Wikipedia:Rcat#Alternative_names_for_articles), but it may not be obvious whether a particular name is a pseudonym or not so separate categories (e.g. "Sportspeople by pseudonym") are not appropriate. Note: There is an administration category
Category:Redirects from pseudonyms.
DexDor (
talk) 05:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- As I've said I don't care if there's a separate subcategory for sportspeople as long as container categories aren't filled up with individual sports people articles. As to the comments about article titles, whether they're pseudonymous, frauds, hoaxes, stage names etc. the usual practice is to include the articles (if source-notable for the importance of the assumed name to their life) whether their article title uses the name or not, e.g. Dwayne Johnson would be on some theoretical grouping of people who worked under an assumed name, actor or wrestler. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment -- This is the equivalent of a stage name. It is unusual for sportspeople to use pseudonyms, but (as the list shows) far from unknown. Possibly Category:Sportspeople with pseudonyms would be better. On case in the list, Henry Arundel is not in fact a pseudonym, as it is common for peers (and those with courtesy titles) to use their title like a surname. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Images affected by the September 2008 image loss bug
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Tidyup. This category is probably now unnecessary. Its content is one userspace js file. DexDor ( talk) 20:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- delete per nom. seems to have served it's purpose. bye bye.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus; however, there seems to be general agreement that some clean up could be warranted, including some transferring of content to Category:Marine occupations. After some sort of clean up occurs, a re-nomination could be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Category:People with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies
- Nominator's rationale This is a container category that is just too big and free-wheeling. My biggest objection is that very rarely do we categorize people by hobby. This just seems to be an invitation to categorize people by trivial actions. In addition, this category just seems to merge unlike things. The notion that Olympic simmers and pirates have something in common because they both generally operate in the water seems a major stretch. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- selective upmerge to Category:Maritime occupations, which seems a better fit; I'm ok with linking whalers, sailors, and pirates together (these are all jobs), but not surfers and rowers (these are sports or hobbies).-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This category was created in 2004, so if we delete it it might be one of the longest-lasting categories I've yet seen... -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Strong keep This is a container category grouping all people involved with nautical activities, or, in other words, people involved with the ocean. All the sub-cats are clearly individual people involved with nautical activities in neat sub-categories. There is obvious continuing and overlapping interest in people with some connection to the ocean, and the sub-cats are clearly defined. There is a problem with the nesting right now though. Category:Maritime occupations shouldn't be in the middle of the "People" tree; it should be used to gather the wikipedia pages describing the abstract jobs, such as Oceanographer. The Category:People with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies should have all of the cats that contain individuals, such as Category:Oceanographers and Category:Ocean rowers. See how Category:Maritime occupations has both Lifeguard and Richard Murphy (Captain)? This proposal would only increase that kind of shenanigan. I can sort these later, but we'll still need an equivalent to "Nautical people" and this cat has been used as such for a long time. We can keep using that way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC).
- In addition the nomination contains a non-argument based on something that isn't happening. "Olympic swimmers" isn't a nautical anything and doesn't seem to have ever been linked to this category.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- that's fair enough, in which case rename to
Category:Maritime people and purge of the rowers and windsurfers, etc.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 03:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't purge rowers from maritime people. I wouldn't say surfers weren't people engaged in an ocean-related occupation. There are other occupational groupings that contain both professional and amateur activities and individuals. I don't really think "occupations" should be more strictly narrowed to only "serious paid jobs" although I completely understand the temptation. But if a user has an interest in or was looking for people who spend their lives on the water for some reason, they won't necessarily care if the individuals were getting paid or not. The Category:People by occupation classifies people by their notable occupations, not their paid work. It's the same problem as Category:Fishers with the same solution: don't worry about the mixing that much. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- that's fair enough, in which case rename to
Category:Maritime people and purge of the rowers and windsurfers, etc.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 03:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- In addition the nomination contains a non-argument based on something that isn't happening. "Olympic swimmers" isn't a nautical anything and doesn't seem to have ever been linked to this category.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as a container only category ; I have just added this designation, which was missing. This is probably appropriate as a high-level parent. Category:Maritime occupations should be a subcategory, not a parent. It may be necessary to purge or to provide a headnote explaining a wider scope. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Maritime occupations should not be a subcategory of a "People with ..." category. DexDor ( talk) 22:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep (or Rename to "Category:People with nautical occupations" or "Category:People with maritime occupations" and add text similar to that at Category:People by occupation to make clear the occupation doesn't just mean employment). DexDor ( talk) 22:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:People with maritime occupations. As it stands, this is just mixing too many unrelated things. If what is there fits the definition of occupation, then the content can remain. If not, it can be cleaned up as needed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)----
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tony Award winning musicals
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. This is a bit of a mess of a discussion. Clearly, there is consensus for the point that we should not have a category that contains the article for every musical that has ever won any type of Tony Award. Mid-discussion, the scope of the category was changed to include articles about only those musicals which won the Tony Award for "best musical". While the case was argued that this would be an appropriate category, I can't see that a consensus developed that we should rename the category to reflect that. Therefore, the category will be deleted according to consensus. However, nothing prevents a user from creating a category intended to house the articles about musicals which won the Tony Award for best musical. It would then be open to those who oppose such a category to nominate it for deletion, and we could have a more focused discussion on that issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
 | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Delete This category was recently added to some 221 articles on musicals. This actually does not designate musicals that won the Tony as Best Musical, it instead designates musicals that one A Tony (in the case of the one that came to my attention, Pipe Dream, for best costume design. It is accordingly vague and misleading. It is also not needed, as there are a number of categories for having won a Tony already in use.Wehwalt ( talk) 18:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC) I have stricken my !delete vote in view of Blethering Scot's work.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)- Comment: The only others i can find are the following cats Category:Tony Awards, Category:Tony Award winners and Category:Tony Award winning plays. None of these cover musicals who have won the tony award for best musical, which i think this was supposed to be, as indeed i think the play one is supposed to be. This is not a case where it should be deleted but a case where it should be renamed appropriately to match the parent article. Rename to Category:Tony Award winning best musicals. Blethering Scot 18:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Further Comment:The cat inclusion sentence was actually vandalised yesterday It previously since 2008 said: Musicals which have been awarded the Tony Award for Best Musical, Best Book, or Best Score. I would say it should only be best musical, but as i say it never included Pipe Dream (musical) until the same editor who vandalised the cat added to the article [1]. Blethering Scot 19:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with Blethering Scot, because the category would still be redundant with the template for Best Musical, and far less well-organized than it is. See also WP:OC/AWARD. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. In addition, it is redundant with the templates for Tony awards that are placed on the musicals' articles. --
Ssilvers (
talk) 18:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Cats and templates are very different things, unless of course the template automatically adds the article to a cat.
Blethering
Scot 18:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- But the cat does not add any useful information, and so it is not needed, and, in fact, simply clutters up the articles. See also WP:OC/AWARD. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Cats and templates are very different things, unless of course the template automatically adds the article to a cat.
Blethering
Scot 18:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – per nom. This is a totally pointless category and is redundant on WP.
Cassianto (
talk) 19:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment:Redundant to what. What evidence due you have to suggest its redundant to anything. Blethering Scot 19:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and then create the new category as suggested by Blethering. Since the current cat is on articles where it doesn't belong we do need to delete it first. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- @ MarnetteD: now contains 66 article the exact number that won best musical. Simply needs a rename no need to create another cat as all data correct. Blethering Scot 01:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – not helpful to our readers, as it implies, wrongly, that the award is for best musical rather than best this, that or the other.
Tim riley (
talk) 19:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment' User:Tim riley Thats grounds for a rename not a delete. Blethering Scot 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and the comments of Ssilvers above.
Jack1956 (
talk) 19:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment' @ Tim riley: @ Jack1956: @ Cassianto: Can all people who have voted delete please provide a clear rationale for doing so. Cats and templates per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates are not considered duplicative or supersede each other. In this case the template does not do the job the category does. The following template and the previous ones do not include every show who has won best musical. Template:TonyAward Musical 2001–2025. The cat however does and although they overlap one does not overrule or do the exact same function as the other. In addition the nominator User:Wehwalt has advised me to create three new cats to split this into, best musical, best score and best book so he doesn't feel WP:OC/AWARD applies. You likely came here following this post [2] which was clearly forum shopping. User:Ssilvers advised only like minded editors of a discussion and he laid out exactly why he wants page deleted in a non neutral and leading manor. He never nominated it but he lead you to vote delete. Thats forum shopping. Please provide rationales to properly explain your delete votes because at the moment they are not clear. Blethering Scot 23:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
-
User:Tim riley your assertion that notifying only a set minded group of editors, in a none neutral manor, laying out clear grounds in his view for deletion is farcical. Now if he said this is a discussion members of this group would be interested in and linked to it, thats not leading what he did was. As usual. When as admin tells you that you should go done something you do it. Anyway your deletion comment is no longer valid. Contains 66 articles all who have won best music;. On top of that its previous criteria was for three awards all of which were fine prior to the vandalism,
Blethering
Scot 16:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is seriously weird. No admin has been involved as far as I know, and as I have already explained, nobody has solicited my opinion on this or any WP page. Beware of a persecution complex, dear colleague! It is possible to disagree in a colleaguely way without my sprouting horns and a tail. I and others just happen not to share your view in this matter. On others we might be utterly ad idem. Tim riley ( talk) 16:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep but only if it is actually going to be populated with every production that ever won any Tony award, otherwise rename to "Tony Award for best musical" or the like Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure if this is now a duplicate of Tony Award for Best Musical. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please close -- This is an unusual case where an award winners category is appropriate as this is a very major award. If there are multiple awards, there should be one category for each, with one parent - a container-only category for all of them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional American Jews in video games
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Fictional American Jews in video games to Category:Fictional American Jews
- Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles. not a needed division JDDJS ( talk) 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose unless all categories in Category:Fictional American people in video games are considered. Most of the child categories are small and I don't see why American Jews category should be deleted (which merging would do) while leaving those for other ethnicities like African-American, European descent and Native American people. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge I don't see the point in having all these subcategories around. Maybe "Fictional American Jews" is too broad, why don't we just make it into "Jews in video games"? I would also like to point out that the articles barely mentioning anything about them "being" Jewish. Doesn't this make this WP:GAMECRUFT? I would consider that trivial information since it has no relevancy in the article. -- Soetermans. T / C 09:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Added William "B.J." Blazkowicz. Jonathan Hardin' ( talk) 12:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge the whole tree to Category:Fictional American people and appropriate subcategories. I do not see that we need to split video games out of fiction generally. We do not have categories for film, books, etc. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose unless all subcategories in Category:Video game characters by nationality are considered. -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 08:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as stated by Liz -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional Hispanic and Latino American people in video games
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in this category. JDDJS ( talk) 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose See above. Just because there are two articles (rather than the 10 for African-Americans?) isn't grounds enough for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge whole tree as Jews above. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose unless all subcategories in Category:Video game characters by nationality are considered. -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 08:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as stated by Liz. -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dallara racing cars
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: do not merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Dallara racing cars to Category:Dallara vehicles
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary sub-category. Dallara only build racing cars, and nothing else, so this is a needless disambiguator. Equally, it is not common practice to have this particular disambiguator used, where the company has a primary or major focus on motorsport: look at Category:Ferrari vehicles, Category:McLaren vehicles, Category:Maserati vehicles, Category:Lotus vehicles and Category:Lister vehicles for such practice, amongst many others. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. This fits the naming scheme under its primary parent, Category:Racing cars by constructor (which, it should be noted, also has Category:Lotus racing cars). This is the sort of "piecemeal" renaming of one category in a tree that is seriously frowned upon, either all of the subcategories of Category:Racing cars by constructor should be upmerged to their manufacturer parents, or none should be. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Given that there is only a small handful of those categories in existence, and most of those are rather lacking in many of those firms' racing cars, I would rather suggest that they should all be upmerged. For example, the Alfa Romeo one contains 1 car, which arguably shouldn't even be in it, as it is a road car. The Ford racing cars also contains an inappropriate entry, and even one of its subcats ( Category:Ford SVT vehicles) shouldn't be in there. The Lotus one has most of its racing cars in the regular cat. A lot of the Mercedes ones are as well. And the MG one doesn't even fit the naming structure at the moment - whilst also being out of scope. Common practice just doesn't seem to favour these. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: They may some day build a racing motorcycle, or a road car. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 09:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Ewing, Kentucky
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries. ...William 15:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Greek and Latin words found in species names
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Greek and Latin words found in species names (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Greek words found in species names
- Propose deleting Category:New Latin
- Propose deleting
Category:Greek and Latin words found in species names (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The pages in these categories are mostly/all disambiguation pages (or pages like Ater and Slevini which probably should be a dab page although not currently tagged as such). As a minimum these categories should be renamed to something like "Disambiguation pages containing Latin species names", but we already have categories such as Category:Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation pages (which are populated by a disambiguation template) and don't need such a proliferation of categories for dab pages. Note: The inclusion of "X. Foo" in a "Foo (disambiguation)" page is also dubious per WP:PTM. See also previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_19#Category:Latin_words_found_in_species_names. There is a List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names which should be moved (e.g. to Category:Biological nomenclature). Note: If this CFD results in delete (or rename) then Template:Species abbreviation should be changed (it probably shouldn't be placing pages in a category anyway). DexDor ( talk) 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- This really ought not the be a useful group of categories. The right place for such a list is in a Greek or Latin dictionary. Any list articles ought to fall under that principle, but this is not AFD, and lists can go into Category:Biological nomenclature ot elsewhere. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)----
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
| < February 27 | March 1 > |
|---|
February 28
Category:Pseudonymous sportspeople
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is a notable intersection. Who knows how many sportspeople have changed their names before going into professional play (we actually have a list at List_of_pseudonyms#Sportspeople). Obviously, all pro wrestlers would be in this category, but it's quite possible many other competitors have a "competition" name. I can see the value of this for writers and artists, who publish work, sometimes under a different name, in order to mask their persona, tell a different story, etc, but I see little value in this intersection for sportspeople (I would likely feel similarly about the many pseudonyms used by musicians, actors, etc). Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment Whatever. I was tidying up Category:Pseudonyms because it was starting to fill up with sports folk when it's not a category for individual articles. You can tidy as you see fit as long as they're not just dumped back in. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete This is categorization by the nature of a name, not by anything about the person themselves. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as this appears to be categorizing by a characteristic of the article title (whether real name or pseudonym has been chosen as the title) (despite what the category text says) rather than by a characteristic of the article subject (i.e. the person). Whether a person has had a pseudonym (or not) is not a suitable characteristic for categorization. The Ring name article should be upmerged to Category:Pseudonyms. See also the inclusion criteria at Category:Pseudonyms. That category and the other subcats should also be purged/deleted/upmerged.
- Note: It may be appropriate for some people to be categorized under both their real name and their pseudonym (see
Wikipedia:Rcat#Alternative_names_for_articles), but it may not be obvious whether a particular name is a pseudonym or not so separate categories (e.g. "Sportspeople by pseudonym") are not appropriate. Note: There is an administration category
Category:Redirects from pseudonyms.
DexDor (
talk) 05:27, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- As I've said I don't care if there's a separate subcategory for sportspeople as long as container categories aren't filled up with individual sports people articles. As to the comments about article titles, whether they're pseudonymous, frauds, hoaxes, stage names etc. the usual practice is to include the articles (if source-notable for the importance of the assumed name to their life) whether their article title uses the name or not, e.g. Dwayne Johnson would be on some theoretical grouping of people who worked under an assumed name, actor or wrestler. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment -- This is the equivalent of a stage name. It is unusual for sportspeople to use pseudonyms, but (as the list shows) far from unknown. Possibly Category:Sportspeople with pseudonyms would be better. On case in the list, Henry Arundel is not in fact a pseudonym, as it is common for peers (and those with courtesy titles) to use their title like a surname. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Images affected by the September 2008 image loss bug
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Tidyup. This category is probably now unnecessary. Its content is one userspace js file. DexDor ( talk) 20:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- delete per nom. seems to have served it's purpose. bye bye.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 23:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
People with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus; however, there seems to be general agreement that some clean up could be warranted, including some transferring of content to Category:Marine occupations. After some sort of clean up occurs, a re-nomination could be appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
- Delete Category:People with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies
- Nominator's rationale This is a container category that is just too big and free-wheeling. My biggest objection is that very rarely do we categorize people by hobby. This just seems to be an invitation to categorize people by trivial actions. In addition, this category just seems to merge unlike things. The notion that Olympic simmers and pirates have something in common because they both generally operate in the water seems a major stretch. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- selective upmerge to Category:Maritime occupations, which seems a better fit; I'm ok with linking whalers, sailors, and pirates together (these are all jobs), but not surfers and rowers (these are sports or hobbies).-- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Note: This category was created in 2004, so if we delete it it might be one of the longest-lasting categories I've yet seen... -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 19:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Strong keep This is a container category grouping all people involved with nautical activities, or, in other words, people involved with the ocean. All the sub-cats are clearly individual people involved with nautical activities in neat sub-categories. There is obvious continuing and overlapping interest in people with some connection to the ocean, and the sub-cats are clearly defined. There is a problem with the nesting right now though. Category:Maritime occupations shouldn't be in the middle of the "People" tree; it should be used to gather the wikipedia pages describing the abstract jobs, such as Oceanographer. The Category:People with nautical occupations, sports or hobbies should have all of the cats that contain individuals, such as Category:Oceanographers and Category:Ocean rowers. See how Category:Maritime occupations has both Lifeguard and Richard Murphy (Captain)? This proposal would only increase that kind of shenanigan. I can sort these later, but we'll still need an equivalent to "Nautical people" and this cat has been used as such for a long time. We can keep using that way. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC).
- In addition the nomination contains a non-argument based on something that isn't happening. "Olympic swimmers" isn't a nautical anything and doesn't seem to have ever been linked to this category.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- that's fair enough, in which case rename to
Category:Maritime people and purge of the rowers and windsurfers, etc.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 03:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- I wouldn't purge rowers from maritime people. I wouldn't say surfers weren't people engaged in an ocean-related occupation. There are other occupational groupings that contain both professional and amateur activities and individuals. I don't really think "occupations" should be more strictly narrowed to only "serious paid jobs" although I completely understand the temptation. But if a user has an interest in or was looking for people who spend their lives on the water for some reason, they won't necessarily care if the individuals were getting paid or not. The Category:People by occupation classifies people by their notable occupations, not their paid work. It's the same problem as Category:Fishers with the same solution: don't worry about the mixing that much. __ E L A Q U E A T E 10:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- that's fair enough, in which case rename to
Category:Maritime people and purge of the rowers and windsurfers, etc.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 03:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- In addition the nomination contains a non-argument based on something that isn't happening. "Olympic swimmers" isn't a nautical anything and doesn't seem to have ever been linked to this category.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep as a container only category ; I have just added this designation, which was missing. This is probably appropriate as a high-level parent. Category:Maritime occupations should be a subcategory, not a parent. It may be necessary to purge or to provide a headnote explaining a wider scope. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Category:Maritime occupations should not be a subcategory of a "People with ..." category. DexDor ( talk) 22:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep (or Rename to "Category:People with nautical occupations" or "Category:People with maritime occupations" and add text similar to that at Category:People by occupation to make clear the occupation doesn't just mean employment). DexDor ( talk) 22:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:People with maritime occupations. As it stands, this is just mixing too many unrelated things. If what is there fits the definition of occupation, then the content can remain. If not, it can be cleaned up as needed. Vegaswikian ( talk) 19:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)----
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Tony Award winning musicals
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. This is a bit of a mess of a discussion. Clearly, there is consensus for the point that we should not have a category that contains the article for every musical that has ever won any type of Tony Award. Mid-discussion, the scope of the category was changed to include articles about only those musicals which won the Tony Award for "best musical". While the case was argued that this would be an appropriate category, I can't see that a consensus developed that we should rename the category to reflect that. Therefore, the category will be deleted according to consensus. However, nothing prevents a user from creating a category intended to house the articles about musicals which won the Tony Award for best musical. It would then be open to those who oppose such a category to nominate it for deletion, and we could have a more focused discussion on that issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
|
| If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}}; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}}. |
Delete This category was recently added to some 221 articles on musicals. This actually does not designate musicals that won the Tony as Best Musical, it instead designates musicals that one A Tony (in the case of the one that came to my attention, Pipe Dream, for best costume design. It is accordingly vague and misleading. It is also not needed, as there are a number of categories for having won a Tony already in use.Wehwalt ( talk) 18:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC) I have stricken my !delete vote in view of Blethering Scot's work.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 02:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)- Comment: The only others i can find are the following cats Category:Tony Awards, Category:Tony Award winners and Category:Tony Award winning plays. None of these cover musicals who have won the tony award for best musical, which i think this was supposed to be, as indeed i think the play one is supposed to be. This is not a case where it should be deleted but a case where it should be renamed appropriately to match the parent article. Rename to Category:Tony Award winning best musicals. Blethering Scot 18:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Further Comment:The cat inclusion sentence was actually vandalised yesterday It previously since 2008 said: Musicals which have been awarded the Tony Award for Best Musical, Best Book, or Best Score. I would say it should only be best musical, but as i say it never included Pipe Dream (musical) until the same editor who vandalised the cat added to the article [1]. Blethering Scot 19:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- I disagree with Blethering Scot, because the category would still be redundant with the template for Best Musical, and far less well-organized than it is. See also WP:OC/AWARD. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. In addition, it is redundant with the templates for Tony awards that are placed on the musicals' articles. --
Ssilvers (
talk) 18:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Cats and templates are very different things, unless of course the template automatically adds the article to a cat.
Blethering
Scot 18:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- But the cat does not add any useful information, and so it is not needed, and, in fact, simply clutters up the articles. See also WP:OC/AWARD. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 18:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment: Cats and templates are very different things, unless of course the template automatically adds the article to a cat.
Blethering
Scot 18:50, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – per nom. This is a totally pointless category and is redundant on WP.
Cassianto (
talk) 19:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment:Redundant to what. What evidence due you have to suggest its redundant to anything. Blethering Scot 19:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete and then create the new category as suggested by Blethering. Since the current cat is on articles where it doesn't belong we do need to delete it first. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- @ MarnetteD: now contains 66 article the exact number that won best musical. Simply needs a rename no need to create another cat as all data correct. Blethering Scot 01:57, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Delete – not helpful to our readers, as it implies, wrongly, that the award is for best musical rather than best this, that or the other.
Tim riley (
talk) 19:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment' User:Tim riley Thats grounds for a rename not a delete. Blethering Scot 19:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. and the comments of Ssilvers above.
Jack1956 (
talk) 19:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Comment' @ Tim riley: @ Jack1956: @ Cassianto: Can all people who have voted delete please provide a clear rationale for doing so. Cats and templates per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates are not considered duplicative or supersede each other. In this case the template does not do the job the category does. The following template and the previous ones do not include every show who has won best musical. Template:TonyAward Musical 2001–2025. The cat however does and although they overlap one does not overrule or do the exact same function as the other. In addition the nominator User:Wehwalt has advised me to create three new cats to split this into, best musical, best score and best book so he doesn't feel WP:OC/AWARD applies. You likely came here following this post [2] which was clearly forum shopping. User:Ssilvers advised only like minded editors of a discussion and he laid out exactly why he wants page deleted in a non neutral and leading manor. He never nominated it but he lead you to vote delete. Thats forum shopping. Please provide rationales to properly explain your delete votes because at the moment they are not clear. Blethering Scot 23:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
-
User:Tim riley your assertion that notifying only a set minded group of editors, in a none neutral manor, laying out clear grounds in his view for deletion is farcical. Now if he said this is a discussion members of this group would be interested in and linked to it, thats not leading what he did was. As usual. When as admin tells you that you should go done something you do it. Anyway your deletion comment is no longer valid. Contains 66 articles all who have won best music;. On top of that its previous criteria was for three awards all of which were fine prior to the vandalism,
Blethering
Scot 16:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- This is seriously weird. No admin has been involved as far as I know, and as I have already explained, nobody has solicited my opinion on this or any WP page. Beware of a persecution complex, dear colleague! It is possible to disagree in a colleaguely way without my sprouting horns and a tail. I and others just happen not to share your view in this matter. On others we might be utterly ad idem. Tim riley ( talk) 16:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Keep but only if it is actually going to be populated with every production that ever won any Tony award, otherwise rename to "Tony Award for best musical" or the like Alanscottwalker ( talk) 12:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not sure if this is now a duplicate of Tony Award for Best Musical. Liz Read! Talk! 23:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Please close -- This is an unusual case where an award winners category is appropriate as this is a very major award. If there are multiple awards, there should be one category for each, with one parent - a container-only category for all of them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional American Jews in video games
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Fictional American Jews in video games to Category:Fictional American Jews
- Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles. not a needed division JDDJS ( talk) 18:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose unless all categories in Category:Fictional American people in video games are considered. Most of the child categories are small and I don't see why American Jews category should be deleted (which merging would do) while leaving those for other ethnicities like African-American, European descent and Native American people. Liz Read! Talk! 23:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge I don't see the point in having all these subcategories around. Maybe "Fictional American Jews" is too broad, why don't we just make it into "Jews in video games"? I would also like to point out that the articles barely mentioning anything about them "being" Jewish. Doesn't this make this WP:GAMECRUFT? I would consider that trivial information since it has no relevancy in the article. -- Soetermans. T / C 09:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Added William "B.J." Blazkowicz. Jonathan Hardin' ( talk) 12:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge the whole tree to Category:Fictional American people and appropriate subcategories. I do not see that we need to split video games out of fiction generally. We do not have categories for film, books, etc. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose unless all subcategories in Category:Video game characters by nationality are considered. -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 08:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as stated by Liz -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:19, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional Hispanic and Latino American people in video games
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only two articles in this category. JDDJS ( talk) 18:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose See above. Just because there are two articles (rather than the 10 for African-Americans?) isn't grounds enough for deletion. Liz Read! Talk! 23:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Merge whole tree as Jews above. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose unless all subcategories in Category:Video game characters by nationality are considered. -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 08:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose as stated by Liz. -- 172.251.77.75 ( talk) 17:18, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dallara racing cars
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: do not merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 22:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Dallara racing cars to Category:Dallara vehicles
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary sub-category. Dallara only build racing cars, and nothing else, so this is a needless disambiguator. Equally, it is not common practice to have this particular disambiguator used, where the company has a primary or major focus on motorsport: look at Category:Ferrari vehicles, Category:McLaren vehicles, Category:Maserati vehicles, Category:Lotus vehicles and Category:Lister vehicles for such practice, amongst many others. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. This fits the naming scheme under its primary parent, Category:Racing cars by constructor (which, it should be noted, also has Category:Lotus racing cars). This is the sort of "piecemeal" renaming of one category in a tree that is seriously frowned upon, either all of the subcategories of Category:Racing cars by constructor should be upmerged to their manufacturer parents, or none should be. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Given that there is only a small handful of those categories in existence, and most of those are rather lacking in many of those firms' racing cars, I would rather suggest that they should all be upmerged. For example, the Alfa Romeo one contains 1 car, which arguably shouldn't even be in it, as it is a road car. The Ford racing cars also contains an inappropriate entry, and even one of its subcats ( Category:Ford SVT vehicles) shouldn't be in there. The Lotus one has most of its racing cars in the regular cat. A lot of the Mercedes ones are as well. And the MG one doesn't even fit the naming structure at the moment - whilst also being out of scope. Common practice just doesn't seem to favour these. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose: They may some day build a racing motorcycle, or a road car. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 09:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- WP:CRYSTAL... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Ewing, Kentucky
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries. ...William 15:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Greek and Latin words found in species names
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 22:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Greek and Latin words found in species names (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Greek words found in species names
- Propose deleting Category:New Latin
- Propose deleting
Category:Greek and Latin words found in species names (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The pages in these categories are mostly/all disambiguation pages (or pages like Ater and Slevini which probably should be a dab page although not currently tagged as such). As a minimum these categories should be renamed to something like "Disambiguation pages containing Latin species names", but we already have categories such as Category:Species Latin name abbreviation disambiguation pages (which are populated by a disambiguation template) and don't need such a proliferation of categories for dab pages. Note: The inclusion of "X. Foo" in a "Foo (disambiguation)" page is also dubious per WP:PTM. See also previous discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_19#Category:Latin_words_found_in_species_names. There is a List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names which should be moved (e.g. to Category:Biological nomenclature). Note: If this CFD results in delete (or rename) then Template:Species abbreviation should be changed (it probably shouldn't be placing pages in a category anyway). DexDor ( talk) 05:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- This really ought not the be a useful group of categories. The right place for such a list is in a Greek or Latin dictionary. Any list articles ought to fall under that principle, but this is not AFD, and lists can go into Category:Biological nomenclature ot elsewhere. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)----
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.