October 4
Category:Rugby league players by club
- 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 rename as nominated; a separate follow-up nomination to consider Occuli's slight modification suggestion could be made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Rugby league players in France by club to Category:Rugby league players by French club
- Propose renaming Category:Rugby league players in Australia by club to Category:Rugby league players by Australian club
- Propose renaming Category:Rugby league players in New Zealand by club to Category:Rugby league players by New Zealand club
- Etc., etc.
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naturally, several players within "Category:Rugby league players in France by club" are no longer in France, rendering its name totally inappropriate. For "Rugby league players in [Country] by club" to work, articles would have to be constantly monitored for the player's whereabouts and categories changed to reflect their movements. That was never the idea. The point of these categories is to break up what would be a hugely overpopulated "Category:Rugby league players by club" into subcategories of clubs (not players) in different countries. Players change country. Clubs do not. Simple. This nomination extends to any similarly named subcategories of "Category:Rugby league players by club" and possibly even those of other sports, as my attempt to fix the situation was
reverted apparently because Association football uses this poorly thought out format (or maybe it works for them because editors do constantly monitor player movements and change their categories, I don't know).
Jeff79 (
talk) 05:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd suggest the nomination should also cover the following categories;
- Category:New Zealand rugby league coaches by club
- Category:New Zealand rugby league coaches by team
- Category:Rugby league players in the United Kingdom by club
- Category:Rugby league players in England by club
- Category:Rugby league players in Scotland by club
- Category:Rugby league players in Wales by club
- Category:Australian rugby league footballers by team
- Category:New Zealand rugby league footballers by team
- Category:Rugby league players in the United States by club
- I'm not sure if you want to formally include Association football categories or not but if so they'd need adding too. Mattlore ( talk) 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd suggest the nomination should also cover the following categories;
Keep all[see below] – the nominator's inference ("Naturally, several players within "Category:Rugby league players in France by club" are no longer in France, rendering its name totally inappropriate") is erroneous. The vast majority of categories in wikipedia make no claims about current status - someone who was once in the The Beatles goes in Category:The Beatles members, someone who once played rugby league in France goes in Category:Rugby league players in France by club. There is nothing wrong with Category:Footballers in France by club and there is no more need to monitor anything than there is with Category:Manchester United F.C. players. Occuli ( talk) 09:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - So you're saying what it comes down to is a grammatical/aesthetic choice between players 'in France by club' (preposition + Noun + preposition + noun), which has the added bonus of implying the meaning I thought it had, or 'by French club' (preposition + adjective + noun) which is shorter and less ambiguous.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 10:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, it does not imply what you think, which is why I said that your inference was erroneous. Further, we have been systematically replacing 'French foos' with 'Foos in France' except when 'French' means 'nationality', and football clubs have no nationality. You could go for "Rugby league players by club in New Zealand". (Personally I think it's far too much trouble to bother about.) Occuli ( talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know why you said that and I disagree. I maintain that the implication is there. Hence Category:People in Turkey and Category:Companies in Canada. Category:Rugby league players by club is the parent category, so Category:Rugby league players by French club is the appropriately named sub-category. Category:Rugby league players in France by club would be appropriate if the parent category was Category:Rugby league players in France. An improvement shouldn't be held back just because it's "far too much trouble to bother about". I have no problem with adjective + noun and would prefer that. Or we could, as you suggested, go the way of Category:Academics by university in Europe.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 12:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rename but to Category:Rugby league players by club in France etc. I am not persuaded by the rationale in the nom but the recent cfd on schools eventually changed target due to Choster's remark "Wouldn't 'People educated by school in Foo' be more correct? The governing angle of the categorization is the institution, not the country". And it should be 'in France', not 'French' per WP:NCCAT#Sport. Occuli ( talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're citing WP:NCCAT#Sport, as we're categorising people here, not sports. I've still heard no sound argument against using adjectives 'French' or 'Australian' to describe a club. Anyway, good to know you now agree with me without actually agreeing with me.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The format "(sport) players in (country) by (organization)" is standard throughout the system. See
Category:Baseball players in Australia by team,
Category:Basketball players in Argentina by club, etc.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 00:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. You seem to be defending the status quo simply because it is the status quo. Would you care to address the points made above? I submit that all the categories you mention need to be changed too. Or do you mean that this needs to be a wider nomination encompassing those categories before you'll discuss it?--
Jeff79 (
talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm defending the status quo because I like the status quo. It neatly categorizes the sport players by their location and places the variable (club) at the end where it generally should be. That doesn't mean I dislike the suggested approach, and I think that if it gains traction it should be applied to the other such categories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the status quo "neatly categorizes the sport players by their location" and this is precisely what is wrong with it. We are not categorising the players by their location, but by their club (see above). Avoiding this confusion is the reason why 'Category:[moveable things] in [place]' appears never to be used in Wikipedia. 'Category:Rugby league players by French club' also "places the variable (club) at the end where it generally should be".-- Jeff79 ( talk) 03:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm defending the status quo because I like the status quo. It neatly categorizes the sport players by their location and places the variable (club) at the end where it generally should be. That doesn't mean I dislike the suggested approach, and I think that if it gains traction it should be applied to the other such categories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. You seem to be defending the status quo simply because it is the status quo. Would you care to address the points made above? I submit that all the categories you mention need to be changed too. Or do you mean that this needs to be a wider nomination encompassing those categories before you'll discuss it?--
Jeff79 (
talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (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:NBC television network
- 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: rename to Category:National Broadcasting Company. All commenters agree that more dismbiguation is needed, and Oknazevad provides the easiest and most consistent way to do that.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 00:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:NBC television network to Category:NBC
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- (wow, I created this category seven years ago) We've often agreed that the best reason to not apply the catname = article name rule in every instance is because the category system needs greater clarity and disambiguation than article names do. So that's the only question here, if Category:NBC would be sufficiently clear, given all the potential meanings. If the decision is to rename, Category:CBS television network should also follow. postdlf ( talk) 03:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep – "because the category system needs greater clarity and disambiguation than article names do". Occuli ( talk) 11:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - "given all the potential meanings" -- Northernhenge ( talk) 21:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alternate suggestion - Being that Category:NBC would likely be ambiguous (though the current placement of the article does indicate a strong primary topic), why not spell out the initialism with Category:National Broadcasting Company?
- It has the advantage of being a) correct, as that remains the full name of the company (unlike CBS which is an orphan initialism), b) unambiguous (no other article has that tile, which is a redirect to NBC) and c) more accurate than the current name (the category also includes daughter cats on the company's former radio operations, which are not television, of course).
- It also would match Category:American Broadcasting Company (and Category:Fox Broadcasting Company and Category:Public Broadcasting Service for that matter) which were moved a little over a month ago. Getting all the cats consistent is good, though CBS would through things off. Perhaps that should be at Category:CBS Broadcasting, as that's the company's full name. ( Category:The CW Television Network is that network's full name, by the way, so it's actually correct.)
- Just strikes me as a logical solution to the problem. oknazevad ( talk) 03:42, 5 October 2011 (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:Light gun games with Quota
- 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Light gun games with Quota (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't think it's reasonable to categorize video games according to the ways in which players can lose lives. It's not a defining characteristic. Pichpich ( talk) 00:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Excessive and excessively narrow intersection Curb Chain ( talk) 11:25, 4 October 2011 (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.
October 4
Category:Rugby league players by club
- 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 rename as nominated; a separate follow-up nomination to consider Occuli's slight modification suggestion could be made. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Rugby league players in France by club to Category:Rugby league players by French club
- Propose renaming Category:Rugby league players in Australia by club to Category:Rugby league players by Australian club
- Propose renaming Category:Rugby league players in New Zealand by club to Category:Rugby league players by New Zealand club
- Etc., etc.
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naturally, several players within "Category:Rugby league players in France by club" are no longer in France, rendering its name totally inappropriate. For "Rugby league players in [Country] by club" to work, articles would have to be constantly monitored for the player's whereabouts and categories changed to reflect their movements. That was never the idea. The point of these categories is to break up what would be a hugely overpopulated "Category:Rugby league players by club" into subcategories of clubs (not players) in different countries. Players change country. Clubs do not. Simple. This nomination extends to any similarly named subcategories of "Category:Rugby league players by club" and possibly even those of other sports, as my attempt to fix the situation was
reverted apparently because Association football uses this poorly thought out format (or maybe it works for them because editors do constantly monitor player movements and change their categories, I don't know).
Jeff79 (
talk) 05:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd suggest the nomination should also cover the following categories;
- Category:New Zealand rugby league coaches by club
- Category:New Zealand rugby league coaches by team
- Category:Rugby league players in the United Kingdom by club
- Category:Rugby league players in England by club
- Category:Rugby league players in Scotland by club
- Category:Rugby league players in Wales by club
- Category:Australian rugby league footballers by team
- Category:New Zealand rugby league footballers by team
- Category:Rugby league players in the United States by club
- I'm not sure if you want to formally include Association football categories or not but if so they'd need adding too. Mattlore ( talk) 07:33, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment: I'd suggest the nomination should also cover the following categories;
Keep all[see below] – the nominator's inference ("Naturally, several players within "Category:Rugby league players in France by club" are no longer in France, rendering its name totally inappropriate") is erroneous. The vast majority of categories in wikipedia make no claims about current status - someone who was once in the The Beatles goes in Category:The Beatles members, someone who once played rugby league in France goes in Category:Rugby league players in France by club. There is nothing wrong with Category:Footballers in France by club and there is no more need to monitor anything than there is with Category:Manchester United F.C. players. Occuli ( talk) 09:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - So you're saying what it comes down to is a grammatical/aesthetic choice between players 'in France by club' (preposition + Noun + preposition + noun), which has the added bonus of implying the meaning I thought it had, or 'by French club' (preposition + adjective + noun) which is shorter and less ambiguous.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 10:21, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- No, it does not imply what you think, which is why I said that your inference was erroneous. Further, we have been systematically replacing 'French foos' with 'Foos in France' except when 'French' means 'nationality', and football clubs have no nationality. You could go for "Rugby league players by club in New Zealand". (Personally I think it's far too much trouble to bother about.) Occuli ( talk) 11:20, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I know why you said that and I disagree. I maintain that the implication is there. Hence Category:People in Turkey and Category:Companies in Canada. Category:Rugby league players by club is the parent category, so Category:Rugby league players by French club is the appropriately named sub-category. Category:Rugby league players in France by club would be appropriate if the parent category was Category:Rugby league players in France. An improvement shouldn't be held back just because it's "far too much trouble to bother about". I have no problem with adjective + noun and would prefer that. Or we could, as you suggested, go the way of Category:Academics by university in Europe.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 12:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rename but to Category:Rugby league players by club in France etc. I am not persuaded by the rationale in the nom but the recent cfd on schools eventually changed target due to Choster's remark "Wouldn't 'People educated by school in Foo' be more correct? The governing angle of the categorization is the institution, not the country". And it should be 'in France', not 'French' per WP:NCCAT#Sport. Occuli ( talk) 16:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why you're citing WP:NCCAT#Sport, as we're categorising people here, not sports. I've still heard no sound argument against using adjectives 'French' or 'Australian' to describe a club. Anyway, good to know you now agree with me without actually agreeing with me.-- Jeff79 ( talk) 19:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. The format "(sport) players in (country) by (organization)" is standard throughout the system. See
Category:Baseball players in Australia by team,
Category:Basketball players in Argentina by club, etc.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 00:42, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. You seem to be defending the status quo simply because it is the status quo. Would you care to address the points made above? I submit that all the categories you mention need to be changed too. Or do you mean that this needs to be a wider nomination encompassing those categories before you'll discuss it?--
Jeff79 (
talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm defending the status quo because I like the status quo. It neatly categorizes the sport players by their location and places the variable (club) at the end where it generally should be. That doesn't mean I dislike the suggested approach, and I think that if it gains traction it should be applied to the other such categories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Yes, the status quo "neatly categorizes the sport players by their location" and this is precisely what is wrong with it. We are not categorising the players by their location, but by their club (see above). Avoiding this confusion is the reason why 'Category:[moveable things] in [place]' appears never to be used in Wikipedia. 'Category:Rugby league players by French club' also "places the variable (club) at the end where it generally should be".-- Jeff79 ( talk) 03:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
- I'm defending the status quo because I like the status quo. It neatly categorizes the sport players by their location and places the variable (club) at the end where it generally should be. That doesn't mean I dislike the suggested approach, and I think that if it gains traction it should be applied to the other such categories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 15:04, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
- Comment. You seem to be defending the status quo simply because it is the status quo. Would you care to address the points made above? I submit that all the categories you mention need to be changed too. Or do you mean that this needs to be a wider nomination encompassing those categories before you'll discuss it?--
Jeff79 (
talk) 00:51, 23 October 2011 (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:NBC television network
- 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: rename to Category:National Broadcasting Company. All commenters agree that more dismbiguation is needed, and Oknazevad provides the easiest and most consistent way to do that.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 00:39, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:NBC television network to Category:NBC
- Nominator's rationale: Per main article. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:11, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- (wow, I created this category seven years ago) We've often agreed that the best reason to not apply the catname = article name rule in every instance is because the category system needs greater clarity and disambiguation than article names do. So that's the only question here, if Category:NBC would be sufficiently clear, given all the potential meanings. If the decision is to rename, Category:CBS television network should also follow. postdlf ( talk) 03:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep – "because the category system needs greater clarity and disambiguation than article names do". Occuli ( talk) 11:23, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Keep - "given all the potential meanings" -- Northernhenge ( talk) 21:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Alternate suggestion - Being that Category:NBC would likely be ambiguous (though the current placement of the article does indicate a strong primary topic), why not spell out the initialism with Category:National Broadcasting Company?
- It has the advantage of being a) correct, as that remains the full name of the company (unlike CBS which is an orphan initialism), b) unambiguous (no other article has that tile, which is a redirect to NBC) and c) more accurate than the current name (the category also includes daughter cats on the company's former radio operations, which are not television, of course).
- It also would match Category:American Broadcasting Company (and Category:Fox Broadcasting Company and Category:Public Broadcasting Service for that matter) which were moved a little over a month ago. Getting all the cats consistent is good, though CBS would through things off. Perhaps that should be at Category:CBS Broadcasting, as that's the company's full name. ( Category:The CW Television Network is that network's full name, by the way, so it's actually correct.)
- Just strikes me as a logical solution to the problem. oknazevad ( talk) 03:42, 5 October 2011 (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:Light gun games with Quota
- 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:03, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
-
Category:Light gun games with Quota (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete I don't think it's reasonable to categorize video games according to the ways in which players can lose lives. It's not a defining characteristic. Pichpich ( talk) 00:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
- Delete Excessive and excessively narrow intersection Curb Chain ( talk) 11:25, 4 October 2011 (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.