Category:National Distance Running Hall of Fame inductees
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.
Delete nobody is notable for inclusion in this hall of fame, like most you had to be already famous to get in - presumably that's what makes the folks notable.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Earth satellites of Russia
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 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:LSU Lady Tigers soccer coaches
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 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:2013 IRS scandal
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 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:Syrian National Coalition members
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 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.
Electric cooperatives by U.S. state
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to a
previous, withdrawn nomination. With
RevelationDirect's input, it became clear that U.S. "electric cooperatives" is a widely established concept and terminology dating back to New Deal rural electrification bills. With some
900 co-ops, largely
dispersed over the whole country, it seems that for most states (except New England and California), there should be a sufficient number of electric cooperatives. Together with at least 200+ historic ones, a complete per-state breakdown should be viable. Small categories may be expected to grow with better coverage, and the handful of
WP:SMALLCAT ones (New England and California) have not even been created (and should not, for the time being). The only non-electric cooperative in these per-state subcategories is the
Central Arkansas Telephone Cooperative. In fact, with
260 individual co-ops, rural telephone cooperatives in the U.S. are another distinct, widely established concept with substantial undercoverage. "Utility cooperatives" however is a rather new term trying to build on the two preexisting sectors. Though going back to the 1994
Rural Utilities Service, it can't be considered widely established, and – if kept as an intermediate container category, might be better termed "Cooperative utilities". Anyway, dispersing
Central Arkansas Telephone Cooperative to
Category:Telephone cooperatives in the United States and
Category:Cooperatives based in Arkansas, we should be done for now, waiting for better coverage. --
PanchoS (
talk)
04:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Topography techniques and subfields
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 to merge, but I will implement the rename since there's been no opposition to it. --
Tavix(
talk)15:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Recipients of the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal
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.
Keep. This appears to be an award for merit, not an automatic award for long service. I'm distinctly uneasy about these recent attempts to delete categories for awards for merit, as they seem like the thin end of the wedge. Who is anyone here to say they're "non-defining"? --
Necrothesp (
talk)
12:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)reply
This award doesn't have a clear formula of 20 years or a certain rank so there does appear to be some discretion for individual merit. Going through the individual recipient articles though, in practice this award seems to clearly be a service award from my perspective.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I think too many categories are deleted on grounds of being "non-defining" but in this case I don't think deletion would be particularly harmful.
Fritz Ermarth is maybe the only person where the medal seems to be defining and that makes for too small a category. However,
National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal contains a (referenced) list of recipients which serves readers who want to find out about these people. Without such a list I would say "keep" because the legitimate interests of readers are far more important than removing "clutter" from the foot of articles.
Thincat (
talk)
10:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Grand Masters of the Order of Independence (Jordan)
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.
Delete The rule should be one office, one category. If someone is the King of Jordan and as such is ceremonial head of however many orders of honor, there is no reason to but them in other categories related to this. This would be like if for the US president we had a category for presidents of the US (which we do) and one for commanders-in-chief of the US military (Which since it is one of the functions of the US president, we do not have a seperate category).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Methods in archaeology
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.
Oppose, many articles in the category will become uncategorized when
Category:Methods in archaeology is going to be deleted and I'm not sure whether upmerging all articles of this category to
Category:Archaeology is a good idea. A better solution is probably to recategorize articles for which "methods" isn't defining, to see if any other child category of
Category:Archaeology is more appropriate for those articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
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.
American sportspeople convicted of crimes
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.
Nominator's rationale: These people are defined by the fact that when convicted of a crime, they had been in the public eye as sportspeople. They are not defined by having been criminals from one sport rather than another. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose at least the footballers, which should probably be renamed football players (more American sounding), because there has been lots of attention paid to NFL players and their run-ins with the law (just google "criminality of nfl players") and even some notable newspapers maintain databases to back up the connection. (see
this link, which includes arrests and acquittals as well as convictions). The connection between a job involving aggression and its possible carryover off the field is not a forgone non-correlative. As for whether people are defined as the football player who committed a crime, I'd assert that football players (and probably other sports stars) arrested/charged/convicted of crimes receive a lot more attention than the non-professional sports-folk, and probably more than (what I'll term) non-agressive sportspeople (divers, curling people, long jumpers, dressage, bowling, and billiards) get when they are arrested/charged/convicted of crimes.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. They generally are defined according to their sport, reported on by journalists and media that cover their sport, and notable mostly to fans of their sport. --
Pemilligan (
talk)
01:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - playing their sport at a certain level is defining and being convicted of a crime might be defining (I would argue it isn't in all cases), but intersecting these categories at this level is not necessarily defining in my opinion.
Rikster2 (
talk)
11:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Support, but change the target of the footballers category from
Category:American footballers (a category redirect related to "soccer") to
Category:American football people (parent category). These categories constitute quadruple-intersections of nationality (American), occupation (sportsperson), field/sport, and criminal conviction. Although there is real-world interest in the relationship between criminality (or, perhaps more accurately, violent behavior) and participation in specific sports (see e.g.,
here and
here), categorization does a poor job of capturing this by lumping together the murderer with the drug user and the domestic abuser with the tax evader under the label of people "convicted of crimes". --
Black Falcon(
talk)00:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Research institutes by type
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 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:Science organizations by topic
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.
Nominator's rationale: Many members are not devoted to scientific research and education, e.g., there are companies and governamental agencies.
fgnievinski (
talk)
00:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose it seems to me that systematizing a category by "topic" is different from systematizing by "academic discipline". At the moment, this seems like apples and oranges. I actually need more clarification to change my Ivote to supporting this proposal. Also, I think moving this to
Category:Science organizations by academic discipline works better. It seems the focus is "science organizations" and not just plain "organizations". Making this change to just plain "organizations" leaves this wide open to any random organization, and could be used to confer or infer noteworthiness or significance on a promotional piece about a company. Right now, I cannot agree ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
01:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not really sure who to interpret this objection, because the category already contains non-science organizations such as societies and companies. This happens naturally because the subcategories by academic discipline aren't limited to science organizations. So the proposed name
Category:Organizations by academic discipline covers exactly what is in here.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I just did a quick look at the sub-categories and it appears these are populated by organizations that focus on science. How can a non-science organization be in the "science organization" category?
Also, societies are populated by scientists (or academicians or researchers - choose your designation), hence these are scientific organizations or "science organizations" - I really don't understand the thinking that these are not. And, as stated below "academic discipline" contains the sciences within as a subset, and also includes non-scientific disciplines. This would rapidly become an over-bloated category, which would then devolve into subcategories, and you're back to where you started. In fact, now that I envision what I just wrote, I don't think this is a well thought out proposal. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
16:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, these are all science categories (or sub-categories) about science organizations. To me this makes it all the more necessary to change to "
Categpry:Science organizations by academic discipline and not "Category:Organizations by academic disciplines". As I said earlier, the latter is way too open ended and could allow for population or promotional pieces by any random organization and deem it noteworthy. With "Catetgory:Science organizations..." it is very clear what the parameters are - and will help out any group of editor monitoring new pages being created and so on... ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
00:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Then you'd better nominate the subcategories for rename, because if you don't nothing will change in the category content and it will continue to contain organizations in general rather than science organizations specifically (as acknowledged by this nomination). However I wouldn't support a new nomination like that.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Steve Quinn as needless upmerging to a parent that does not exist. At best, "academic discipline" is a superset of "science". I have no objection to the creation of a
Category:Organizations by academic discipline that contains within it a subcat for science along side subcats for...humanities, social science, fine arts, etc. And if renaming the existing one to a canonical "XX organizations by academic discipline" (to match that new parent, and for all sister cats of
Category:Science organizations by academic discipline) rather than "...topic" makes it clearer for someone, I have no objection.
DMacks (
talk)
03:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Police in fiction
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.
Nominator's rationale: "Law enforcement" is more inclusive than "police" and permits the inclusion of topics related to non-police organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) --
Black Falcon(
talk)00:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
*OpposeCategory:FBI in fiction is already a subcategory of this category, so this means
Category:FBI in fiction is already part of this category. Also, creating this proposed category will probably lead to an overly bloated category - and subcategories will once again be created. Additionally,
Category:Police in fiction is already a subcategory of
Category:Law in fiction. So this proposed category already exists under that name, which is also broader and already more inclusive. Therefore, it seems that creating this proposed category is superfluous and will really make a mess - and I am sorry to say that - but that is what I foresee. Particularly since
Category:Police in fiction already has 111 articles. Do we move this and eventually bloat to 500 articles? (which will then devolve into a number of subcategories). ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
01:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for sharing your concerns. I will try to address them separately:
"Category:FBI in fiction is already a subcategory of this category, so this means Category:FBI in fiction is already part of this category." – A category's title should reflect the intended scope of that category. The scope indicated by the current title, Police in fiction, would exclude the FBI and suggest that it be removed. Renaming the category better aligns the title with the intended scope.
"Also, creating this proposed category will probably lead to an overly bloated category - and subcategories will once again be created." – Can you please explain why you think this would happen?
"Additionally, Category:Police in fiction is already a subcategory of Category:Law in fiction. So this proposed category already exists under that name, which is also broader and already more inclusive." – The hierarchy of topics is law in fiction > law enforcement in fiction > police in fiction. Going from law in fiction directly to police in fiction skips a level.
Support I think I misread the proposed category. I don't know what I was thinking. I don't see a problem moving to category:law enforcement in fiction. I rescind my opposition to this name change/category move. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
06:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename I have to admit I use police and law enforcement interchangeably. however if the later is slightly broader, I see no reason to not use the broader name. To make things more fuzzy, in some fictional works you have characters who based on their actual described office should not be functioning as police, but are actually based on their actions portrayed as being police. So I do not think there is any workable scope for two categories, no matter how much potential content we have.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:National Distance Running Hall of Fame inductees
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.
Delete nobody is notable for inclusion in this hall of fame, like most you had to be already famous to get in - presumably that's what makes the folks notable.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Earth satellites of Russia
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 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:LSU Lady Tigers soccer coaches
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 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:2013 IRS scandal
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 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:Syrian National Coalition members
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 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.
Electric cooperatives by U.S. state
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to a
previous, withdrawn nomination. With
RevelationDirect's input, it became clear that U.S. "electric cooperatives" is a widely established concept and terminology dating back to New Deal rural electrification bills. With some
900 co-ops, largely
dispersed over the whole country, it seems that for most states (except New England and California), there should be a sufficient number of electric cooperatives. Together with at least 200+ historic ones, a complete per-state breakdown should be viable. Small categories may be expected to grow with better coverage, and the handful of
WP:SMALLCAT ones (New England and California) have not even been created (and should not, for the time being). The only non-electric cooperative in these per-state subcategories is the
Central Arkansas Telephone Cooperative. In fact, with
260 individual co-ops, rural telephone cooperatives in the U.S. are another distinct, widely established concept with substantial undercoverage. "Utility cooperatives" however is a rather new term trying to build on the two preexisting sectors. Though going back to the 1994
Rural Utilities Service, it can't be considered widely established, and – if kept as an intermediate container category, might be better termed "Cooperative utilities". Anyway, dispersing
Central Arkansas Telephone Cooperative to
Category:Telephone cooperatives in the United States and
Category:Cooperatives based in Arkansas, we should be done for now, waiting for better coverage. --
PanchoS (
talk)
04:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Topography techniques and subfields
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 to merge, but I will implement the rename since there's been no opposition to it. --
Tavix(
talk)15:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Recipients of the National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal
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.
Keep. This appears to be an award for merit, not an automatic award for long service. I'm distinctly uneasy about these recent attempts to delete categories for awards for merit, as they seem like the thin end of the wedge. Who is anyone here to say they're "non-defining"? --
Necrothesp (
talk)
12:23, 3 August 2016 (UTC)reply
This award doesn't have a clear formula of 20 years or a certain rank so there does appear to be some discretion for individual merit. Going through the individual recipient articles though, in practice this award seems to clearly be a service award from my perspective.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
01:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Comment I think too many categories are deleted on grounds of being "non-defining" but in this case I don't think deletion would be particularly harmful.
Fritz Ermarth is maybe the only person where the medal seems to be defining and that makes for too small a category. However,
National Intelligence Distinguished Service Medal contains a (referenced) list of recipients which serves readers who want to find out about these people. Without such a list I would say "keep" because the legitimate interests of readers are far more important than removing "clutter" from the foot of articles.
Thincat (
talk)
10:48, 8 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Grand Masters of the Order of Independence (Jordan)
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.
Delete The rule should be one office, one category. If someone is the King of Jordan and as such is ceremonial head of however many orders of honor, there is no reason to but them in other categories related to this. This would be like if for the US president we had a category for presidents of the US (which we do) and one for commanders-in-chief of the US military (Which since it is one of the functions of the US president, we do not have a seperate category).
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Methods in archaeology
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.
Oppose, many articles in the category will become uncategorized when
Category:Methods in archaeology is going to be deleted and I'm not sure whether upmerging all articles of this category to
Category:Archaeology is a good idea. A better solution is probably to recategorize articles for which "methods" isn't defining, to see if any other child category of
Category:Archaeology is more appropriate for those articles.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:42, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
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.
American sportspeople convicted of crimes
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.
Nominator's rationale: These people are defined by the fact that when convicted of a crime, they had been in the public eye as sportspeople. They are not defined by having been criminals from one sport rather than another. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
01:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose at least the footballers, which should probably be renamed football players (more American sounding), because there has been lots of attention paid to NFL players and their run-ins with the law (just google "criminality of nfl players") and even some notable newspapers maintain databases to back up the connection. (see
this link, which includes arrests and acquittals as well as convictions). The connection between a job involving aggression and its possible carryover off the field is not a forgone non-correlative. As for whether people are defined as the football player who committed a crime, I'd assert that football players (and probably other sports stars) arrested/charged/convicted of crimes receive a lot more attention than the non-professional sports-folk, and probably more than (what I'll term) non-agressive sportspeople (divers, curling people, long jumpers, dressage, bowling, and billiards) get when they are arrested/charged/convicted of crimes.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. They generally are defined according to their sport, reported on by journalists and media that cover their sport, and notable mostly to fans of their sport. --
Pemilligan (
talk)
01:09, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Support - playing their sport at a certain level is defining and being convicted of a crime might be defining (I would argue it isn't in all cases), but intersecting these categories at this level is not necessarily defining in my opinion.
Rikster2 (
talk)
11:22, 2 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Support, but change the target of the footballers category from
Category:American footballers (a category redirect related to "soccer") to
Category:American football people (parent category). These categories constitute quadruple-intersections of nationality (American), occupation (sportsperson), field/sport, and criminal conviction. Although there is real-world interest in the relationship between criminality (or, perhaps more accurately, violent behavior) and participation in specific sports (see e.g.,
here and
here), categorization does a poor job of capturing this by lumping together the murderer with the drug user and the domestic abuser with the tax evader under the label of people "convicted of crimes". --
Black Falcon(
talk)00:06, 8 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Research institutes by type
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 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:Science organizations by topic
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.
Nominator's rationale: Many members are not devoted to scientific research and education, e.g., there are companies and governamental agencies.
fgnievinski (
talk)
00:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose it seems to me that systematizing a category by "topic" is different from systematizing by "academic discipline". At the moment, this seems like apples and oranges. I actually need more clarification to change my Ivote to supporting this proposal. Also, I think moving this to
Category:Science organizations by academic discipline works better. It seems the focus is "science organizations" and not just plain "organizations". Making this change to just plain "organizations" leaves this wide open to any random organization, and could be used to confer or infer noteworthiness or significance on a promotional piece about a company. Right now, I cannot agree ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
01:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not really sure who to interpret this objection, because the category already contains non-science organizations such as societies and companies. This happens naturally because the subcategories by academic discipline aren't limited to science organizations. So the proposed name
Category:Organizations by academic discipline covers exactly what is in here.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
I just did a quick look at the sub-categories and it appears these are populated by organizations that focus on science. How can a non-science organization be in the "science organization" category?
Also, societies are populated by scientists (or academicians or researchers - choose your designation), hence these are scientific organizations or "science organizations" - I really don't understand the thinking that these are not. And, as stated below "academic discipline" contains the sciences within as a subset, and also includes non-scientific disciplines. This would rapidly become an over-bloated category, which would then devolve into subcategories, and you're back to where you started. In fact, now that I envision what I just wrote, I don't think this is a well thought out proposal. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
16:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Yes, these are all science categories (or sub-categories) about science organizations. To me this makes it all the more necessary to change to "
Categpry:Science organizations by academic discipline and not "Category:Organizations by academic disciplines". As I said earlier, the latter is way too open ended and could allow for population or promotional pieces by any random organization and deem it noteworthy. With "Catetgory:Science organizations..." it is very clear what the parameters are - and will help out any group of editor monitoring new pages being created and so on... ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
00:10, 16 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Then you'd better nominate the subcategories for rename, because if you don't nothing will change in the category content and it will continue to contain organizations in general rather than science organizations specifically (as acknowledged by this nomination). However I wouldn't support a new nomination like that.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:40, 19 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Steve Quinn as needless upmerging to a parent that does not exist. At best, "academic discipline" is a superset of "science". I have no objection to the creation of a
Category:Organizations by academic discipline that contains within it a subcat for science along side subcats for...humanities, social science, fine arts, etc. And if renaming the existing one to a canonical "XX organizations by academic discipline" (to match that new parent, and for all sister cats of
Category:Science organizations by academic discipline) rather than "...topic" makes it clearer for someone, I have no objection.
DMacks (
talk)
03:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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:Police in fiction
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.
Nominator's rationale: "Law enforcement" is more inclusive than "police" and permits the inclusion of topics related to non-police organizations such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation. (Category creator notified using
Template:Cfd-notify) --
Black Falcon(
talk)00:22, 31 July 2016 (UTC)reply
*OpposeCategory:FBI in fiction is already a subcategory of this category, so this means
Category:FBI in fiction is already part of this category. Also, creating this proposed category will probably lead to an overly bloated category - and subcategories will once again be created. Additionally,
Category:Police in fiction is already a subcategory of
Category:Law in fiction. So this proposed category already exists under that name, which is also broader and already more inclusive. Therefore, it seems that creating this proposed category is superfluous and will really make a mess - and I am sorry to say that - but that is what I foresee. Particularly since
Category:Police in fiction already has 111 articles. Do we move this and eventually bloat to 500 articles? (which will then devolve into a number of subcategories). ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
01:51, 12 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks for sharing your concerns. I will try to address them separately:
"Category:FBI in fiction is already a subcategory of this category, so this means Category:FBI in fiction is already part of this category." – A category's title should reflect the intended scope of that category. The scope indicated by the current title, Police in fiction, would exclude the FBI and suggest that it be removed. Renaming the category better aligns the title with the intended scope.
"Also, creating this proposed category will probably lead to an overly bloated category - and subcategories will once again be created." – Can you please explain why you think this would happen?
"Additionally, Category:Police in fiction is already a subcategory of Category:Law in fiction. So this proposed category already exists under that name, which is also broader and already more inclusive." – The hierarchy of topics is law in fiction > law enforcement in fiction > police in fiction. Going from law in fiction directly to police in fiction skips a level.
Support I think I misread the proposed category. I don't know what I was thinking. I don't see a problem moving to category:law enforcement in fiction. I rescind my opposition to this name change/category move. ---
Steve Quinn (
talk)
06:24, 18 August 2016 (UTC)reply
Rename I have to admit I use police and law enforcement interchangeably. however if the later is slightly broader, I see no reason to not use the broader name. To make things more fuzzy, in some fictional works you have characters who based on their actual described office should not be functioning as police, but are actually based on their actions portrayed as being police. So I do not think there is any workable scope for two categories, no matter how much potential content we have.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
02:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)reply
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.