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 the two classical categories, following the consensus about their parent at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_6#Category:Classical_vibraphonists; no consensus on the others. Note that the sole Hungarian classical vibraphonist is already categorised in both parent hierarchies (vibraphonist and classical musician), so no merge is needed in that case. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination for merger, but if so the multiple merge targets should be listed in full, not left for the closer to compile. –
FayenaticLondon13:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
But you are proposing to delete classical vibraphone category too, further up this page. Some merging needs to take place in order to avoid that articles are completely removed from the tree of vibraphonists, or from the tree of any other current parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Why oppose the last one? There's not really any difference between a jazz vibraphonist and a vibraphonist. There's not a single player in the parent that is also not a jazz player. I've checked.
Why? I Ask (
talk)
20:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, and why do you oppose merging American jazz vibraphonists into American vibraphonists? Per my points above, the members of the parent category could all reasonably be placed into the subcat rendering it moot.
Why? I Ask (
talk)
19:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
For now, would you be fine with the rest of the proposed changes? I can withdraw the American jazz upmerge and make that a separate discussion. However, I still think it's pretty obvious that the other categories aren't worth keeping.
Why? I Ask (
talk)
23:52, 22 September 2022 (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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the ping
Marcocapelle. My oppose is based on the fact that
physically integrated dance is a concept which relates specifically to dancers with physical disabilities as distinct from blind, deaf, or intellectually disabled dancers. This distinction should be maintained in the relevant categories as this is a case where there should be subcategories (similar to such categories for disabled athletes).
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
20:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support I understand the distinction made by Roger in the opposed speedy, but this change represents a broadening of scope to any dancer with a disability, which is currently how it is used. No opposition to the creation of a further category for
Category:Physically integrated dance performers but seems a little niche given the parent is currently only at 8 articles.
SFB19:25, 28 September 2022 (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:French architecture outside France
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.
Support - It seems that I agree with Marcocapelle, inasmuch that I too don't think that "French style" is a thing (I know it's not). So, if there are articles which don't include some other kind of buildings, facilities, etc., which obviously do not belong into "colonial" cat, those should be moved to "French buildings and constructions" or even create a category "French buildings and constructions outside France" if such do not exists yet. (There is a term used historically - French work / Opus Francigenum - it was used to identify Gothic architecture, most characteristic for medieval France; even earlier, very characteristic for France, from where it spread as a distinct style, was First Romanesque arch or Lombard Romanesque arch. These are all very distinct styles and typical for France, but they are not named French even when we colloquially say French Gothic arch, it is still just Gothic style in arch. This means that there is no recognized and defined French Arch per se, because architecture is all style and style is all arch.)--
౪ Santa ౪99°19:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I see little bit of explaining in the article, it says: "The external cladding of the building is Georgian, using
Caen Stone to make it look like a classical
FrenchChateau." This means that arch is Georgan style, type is French Chateau. With K-Hale is less clear - when I was in school, some 30yrs.ago, this was explicitly called French Baroque Revival, now I see several synonymous refed in article, including Second Empire style. I checked little bit further and found that that particular building's arch style is eclasticism in its fullest. Statue, I would keep it within arch only if our arch tree was about style only - she is neoclassical style, that's it - it's not French architecture, it's a French construction, it's a neoclassical sculpture done by French sculptor. I know it's not much, I am not giving you straight answers, but I really think we have messed up with conflating architecture with construction, and we now have a problem differentiating between two. I know this much - we should have (sub?)category French Baroque Revival, and top cat Architecture in France, but certainly not French architecture, French architecture outside France, etc.
౪ Santa ౪99°21:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I meant
Georgan style, and type of the building is French Chateau. I noticed in all our earlier encounters that we agreed on almost everything if not absolutely everything, so I wouldn't mind if this ends as you propose, trusting that you could make best of it under the circumstances (messed up entire tree).
౪ Santa ౪99°10:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Mild support for deletion. The
Corfu Liston is a landmark built by the French in the 1800s which would hardly qualify as French Colonial architecture. Same for the
Rio–Antirrio Bridge, built in the 2000s. There are many buildings built by the French outside of France that are not colonial in style, but I do not think that they have much in common.
Place Clichy (
talk)
10:46, 3 October 2022 (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.
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.
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: The definition of a "
jobber" is not precise and ascertaining who is or is not a jobber is largely subjective, making this category unscientific.
McPhail (
talk)
16:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not defining for many of the subject categorized, ill-defined, and possibly even a bit insulting, raising BLP issues. Just not objective enough for a category.
oknazevad (
talk)
16:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Listify at
jobber (professional wrestling). Given the potential for subjectivity and the status of jobber to vary depending on place of employment, a list can address this topic in a much better fashion than a category without context or citation. There are clear examples of professional jobbers such as
Barry Horowitz and
Steve Lombardi, whose careers at certain federations almost exclusively consisted of losses. There are others in this category which clearly don't meet that definition, such as
Kantaro Hoshino who won a championship at the federation he is purported to have been a jobber at (which is the antithesis of a jobber).
SFB19:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete This category could cause a lot of issues like original research and personal commentary/analysis because the term
jobber is subjective. For example, consider a wrestler's losing streak. Source A views it as jobbing, and Source B views it a part of a storyline or
angle. Sometimes a losing streak is a part of long-term character development. Pro wrestling terms like "jobber" does not work as category. --
Mann Mann (
talk)
03:52, 2 October 2022 (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:Competitors in athletics with limb difference
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: The surrounding hierarchy of
Filipino businesspeople uses "Filipino" throughout apart from these three. There is some ambiguity in the
Company founders by nationality categories as to whether they are (in this case) Filipino founders of companies that are based anywhere, or people from anywhere who founded companies based in the Philippines. In only this case there would be a difference in wording, with the adjective Filipino used for the former, or Philippine for the latter. In these three categories, only the lower one (television) holds articles directly, and two out of six (
James Lindenberg and
Robert Stewart) were American expatriates, who might never have taken Filipino nationality. Even so, I would rename the lot to match the parent
Filipino businesspeople, and allow for a minor degree of inaccuracy over foreign-born founders of Philippine companies.
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:Iranian mass media company founders
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: Only contains
Masoud Zoohori, who is CEO of a radio network but not its founder, and founded a national darts association which is not a mass media company. I did not find any other potential members in the target category. –
FayenaticLondon11:28, 28 September 2022 (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.
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.
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 the two classical categories, following the consensus about their parent at
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_October_6#Category:Classical_vibraphonists; no consensus on the others. Note that the sole Hungarian classical vibraphonist is already categorised in both parent hierarchies (vibraphonist and classical musician), so no merge is needed in that case. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination for merger, but if so the multiple merge targets should be listed in full, not left for the closer to compile. –
FayenaticLondon13:07, 19 October 2022 (UTC)reply
But you are proposing to delete classical vibraphone category too, further up this page. Some merging needs to take place in order to avoid that articles are completely removed from the tree of vibraphonists, or from the tree of any other current parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Why oppose the last one? There's not really any difference between a jazz vibraphonist and a vibraphonist. There's not a single player in the parent that is also not a jazz player. I've checked.
Why? I Ask (
talk)
20:22, 20 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, and why do you oppose merging American jazz vibraphonists into American vibraphonists? Per my points above, the members of the parent category could all reasonably be placed into the subcat rendering it moot.
Why? I Ask (
talk)
19:49, 21 September 2022 (UTC)reply
For now, would you be fine with the rest of the proposed changes? I can withdraw the American jazz upmerge and make that a separate discussion. However, I still think it's pretty obvious that the other categories aren't worth keeping.
Why? I Ask (
talk)
23:52, 22 September 2022 (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.
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.
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.
Thanks for the ping
Marcocapelle. My oppose is based on the fact that
physically integrated dance is a concept which relates specifically to dancers with physical disabilities as distinct from blind, deaf, or intellectually disabled dancers. This distinction should be maintained in the relevant categories as this is a case where there should be subcategories (similar to such categories for disabled athletes).
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk)
20:23, 22 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Support I understand the distinction made by Roger in the opposed speedy, but this change represents a broadening of scope to any dancer with a disability, which is currently how it is used. No opposition to the creation of a further category for
Category:Physically integrated dance performers but seems a little niche given the parent is currently only at 8 articles.
SFB19:25, 28 September 2022 (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:French architecture outside France
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.
Support - It seems that I agree with Marcocapelle, inasmuch that I too don't think that "French style" is a thing (I know it's not). So, if there are articles which don't include some other kind of buildings, facilities, etc., which obviously do not belong into "colonial" cat, those should be moved to "French buildings and constructions" or even create a category "French buildings and constructions outside France" if such do not exists yet. (There is a term used historically - French work / Opus Francigenum - it was used to identify Gothic architecture, most characteristic for medieval France; even earlier, very characteristic for France, from where it spread as a distinct style, was First Romanesque arch or Lombard Romanesque arch. These are all very distinct styles and typical for France, but they are not named French even when we colloquially say French Gothic arch, it is still just Gothic style in arch. This means that there is no recognized and defined French Arch per se, because architecture is all style and style is all arch.)--
౪ Santa ౪99°19:53, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I see little bit of explaining in the article, it says: "The external cladding of the building is Georgian, using
Caen Stone to make it look like a classical
FrenchChateau." This means that arch is Georgan style, type is French Chateau. With K-Hale is less clear - when I was in school, some 30yrs.ago, this was explicitly called French Baroque Revival, now I see several synonymous refed in article, including Second Empire style. I checked little bit further and found that that particular building's arch style is eclasticism in its fullest. Statue, I would keep it within arch only if our arch tree was about style only - she is neoclassical style, that's it - it's not French architecture, it's a French construction, it's a neoclassical sculpture done by French sculptor. I know it's not much, I am not giving you straight answers, but I really think we have messed up with conflating architecture with construction, and we now have a problem differentiating between two. I know this much - we should have (sub?)category French Baroque Revival, and top cat Architecture in France, but certainly not French architecture, French architecture outside France, etc.
౪ Santa ౪99°21:27, 30 September 2022 (UTC)reply
I meant
Georgan style, and type of the building is French Chateau. I noticed in all our earlier encounters that we agreed on almost everything if not absolutely everything, so I wouldn't mind if this ends as you propose, trusting that you could make best of it under the circumstances (messed up entire tree).
౪ Santa ౪99°10:08, 1 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Mild support for deletion. The
Corfu Liston is a landmark built by the French in the 1800s which would hardly qualify as French Colonial architecture. Same for the
Rio–Antirrio Bridge, built in the 2000s. There are many buildings built by the French outside of France that are not colonial in style, but I do not think that they have much in common.
Place Clichy (
talk)
10:46, 3 October 2022 (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.
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.
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: The definition of a "
jobber" is not precise and ascertaining who is or is not a jobber is largely subjective, making this category unscientific.
McPhail (
talk)
16:04, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not defining for many of the subject categorized, ill-defined, and possibly even a bit insulting, raising BLP issues. Just not objective enough for a category.
oknazevad (
talk)
16:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Listify at
jobber (professional wrestling). Given the potential for subjectivity and the status of jobber to vary depending on place of employment, a list can address this topic in a much better fashion than a category without context or citation. There are clear examples of professional jobbers such as
Barry Horowitz and
Steve Lombardi, whose careers at certain federations almost exclusively consisted of losses. There are others in this category which clearly don't meet that definition, such as
Kantaro Hoshino who won a championship at the federation he is purported to have been a jobber at (which is the antithesis of a jobber).
SFB19:36, 28 September 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete This category could cause a lot of issues like original research and personal commentary/analysis because the term
jobber is subjective. For example, consider a wrestler's losing streak. Source A views it as jobbing, and Source B views it a part of a storyline or
angle. Sometimes a losing streak is a part of long-term character development. Pro wrestling terms like "jobber" does not work as category. --
Mann Mann (
talk)
03:52, 2 October 2022 (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:Competitors in athletics with limb difference
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: The surrounding hierarchy of
Filipino businesspeople uses "Filipino" throughout apart from these three. There is some ambiguity in the
Company founders by nationality categories as to whether they are (in this case) Filipino founders of companies that are based anywhere, or people from anywhere who founded companies based in the Philippines. In only this case there would be a difference in wording, with the adjective Filipino used for the former, or Philippine for the latter. In these three categories, only the lower one (television) holds articles directly, and two out of six (
James Lindenberg and
Robert Stewart) were American expatriates, who might never have taken Filipino nationality. Even so, I would rename the lot to match the parent
Filipino businesspeople, and allow for a minor degree of inaccuracy over foreign-born founders of Philippine companies.
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:Iranian mass media company founders
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: Only contains
Masoud Zoohori, who is CEO of a radio network but not its founder, and founded a national darts association which is not a mass media company. I did not find any other potential members in the target category. –
FayenaticLondon11:28, 28 September 2022 (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.
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.