Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 29 January 31 >

January 30

[edit]

Maccabiah Games categories

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: The Maccabiah Games is not a large scale enough games to warrant subdivision by both the nation represented and the sport competed, nor is the year of competing at a specific edition of the games a defining feature of any athlete. Furthermore, the categories themselves do not warrant subdivision on a size basis. Category:Maccabiah Games competitors for the United States (the largest container) will contain only 50 articles upon upmerging of all the by-sport children. On the sport side, Category:Maccabiah Games athletes (track and field) will only contain six articles after a complete tree upmerge of the country and year subcategories (that tree currently has more child categories than articles). The same applies to the other smaller nations and sports.
This is the case of a structure for a minor competition getting far ahead of itself by following the Olympic category model. Such facets of competition at the Maccabiah are not of the same relevance or definingness in comparison to Olympic level events. To give an idea of the level of the competition, the winner of the 2009 men's shot put won with a mark of 14.88m. This is far below even low-level international standards (consider that over 18.50m was needed to rank in the top global 150). It is not only not defining to compete at a specific edition, but we are unlikely to gather multiple notable biographies to warrant categories of this level. SFB 23:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 22:43, 30 January 2015 (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:Maccabiah Games bronze medalists

[edit]
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 delete, default to keep.Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 14:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A bronze medal at the Maccabiah Games is not a defining feature of a person. This is not a top level event like the Olympics or World Championships where a medal would represent a person reaching the peak of the sport. If this logic is accepted, the parent should be merged with the grandparent as only the gold medallists category will remain. SFB 00:01, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure why you think this is not a top level event. It appears to me to be one. Nor am I sure where the "must be a top level event" guideline is, though perhaps you will point us to it. --Epeefleche (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Epeefleche: It is an ethnic event which does not feature sporting competition of a top level international standard. Winning such a medal not only fails to indicate notability, it actually indicates the opposite (3rd best Jewish descent shot putter of 1963 anyone?) SFB 22:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • "which does not feature sporting competition of a top level international standard" - That's absolutely wrong. the event IS of Olympic Standard following ALL IOC guidelines and regulations (in fact it's endorsed by them). As for being an ethnic event, I'll give you that (even though that's wrong too because it's open to ALL citizens). In either case, that's not a valid reason for CFD. --32.97.110.60 (talk) 19:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Obeying the rules is not the same as reaching the standard. My regional athletics championships is in line with those rules, but medalling at that event is not a defining characteristic that we should be categorising on. Consider for example, Jeffrey Weinstein (the 2009 10,000m Maccabiah bronze medallist). His time of 33:18.96 minutes would have ranked him sixth in the English women's championships, or ranked him down near the bottom of the third-tier English men's club runners races[1]. This event is objectively not of an international standard, let alone Olympic standard. SFB 14:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see -- you misunderstand. This event, the third-largest sports event in the world, with 9,000 participant athletes from 78 countries is not merely "obeying the rules" of the International Olympic Committee. Instead, the International Olympic Committee has officially designated it as a "Regional Sport Event". By, and under the auspices of and supervision of the International Olympic Committee and international sports federations. That, of course, is quite different.
Secondly, it is not strictly a Jewish Olympics. It is open to qualifying athletes who are either: a) Jewish, from whatever country; or b) Israeli, no matter what their religion. Among the medalists you will find Arabs and Muslims and Druze.
Third, you fail to focus on relevant facts. All of the three-dozen bronze medalists currently reflected, as well as the 150-plus gold medalists and silver medalists, are notable by wp standards. This is not an AfD as to whether the competition is notable (it clearly is), or whether any individuals in the cats are notable (as of now they all appear to be) -- it is whether or not, for this notable event, whether the notable people who have won medals are entitled to be categorized by their medals won.
For !votes to count, they have to be based on valid wp principles -- your assertions are not so based, and in some respects miss the point of what is relevant for this !vote. Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed -- your oppose counts; it is not impacted by the fact that you do not have an account. Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 22:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Expanding on the above, this is the third-largest international sport event in the world (after the Olympics and the soccer World Cup), and is sanctioned by the US Olympic Committee (as User:32.97.110.60 alluded to).[2]
With 9,000 participants from 78 countries.[3] The first Games were in 1932. It is obviously not comparable to a local event, as was suggested above.
There is no requirement that performance be at level x in a sport event ... we would reflect a medal winner at the national sport event of the smallest nation, for example ... and this is much larger with much more RS coverage. See, for example, the thousands of entries in gnews archives, Gbooks, as well as the 180,000 google hits.
And the RS articles don't indicate that "person x won a medal" ... they say that "person x won a bronze medal" (or gold, etc.). See here, for thousands of examples. Demonstrating that it is defining.
Just as is the case with Category:Olympic bronze medalists, Category:Commonwealth Games bronze medallists, Category:Paralympic bronze medalists, Category:Pan American Games bronze medalists, Category:Asian Games bronze medalists, and the dozens of bronze medalist cats reflected here. Epeefleche (talk) 06:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A search for people described as a "Maccabiah Games bronze medalist" turns up five people, only one of whom (a paralympian) is notable. The rest (a personal trainer, a stunt actor, a management consultant, a finance worker...) aren't notable as sportspeople let alone in their field of expertise.SFB 18:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's because of how you constructed your search. It would fail to capture, say, "Person x won a bronze in the Maccabiah Games". Try "Maccabiah Games" and "bronze", and you get thousands of ghits and many gnews hits and gbooks hits -- demonstrating that winning the bronze at the games is something the RSs cover substantially. Plus -- we have over two dozen wp articles now which reflect individuals having won Maccabiah bronze medals ... and 100 more which reflect individuals having won gold medals or silver medals. See here. Epeefleche (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is -- medals are given out (just as at the Olympics) as either gold, or silver, or bronze. RSs nearly always cover them as such. We don't have only one "medal" category for the Olympics ... nobody would say it is not "defining" to win a bronze vs. a gold. Nor does that make any sense at all to baldly without basis -- and in contrast to RS coveraqe -- assert here. Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as this primarily an ethnic event, categorizing it as a sports event doesn't seem very appropriate. Instead, I would suggest creating a category for membership of the Maccabi Sports Movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does that make any sense? The RSs refer to it as a sports event. It is open not just to an ethnicity, but to all Israelis. And the International Olympic Committee has officially designated it as a "Regional Sport Event". Under their auspices and supervision. On what basis - in the face of all this - can you assert it is anything other than a sports event? Epeefleche (talk) 23:18, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, while I would question the claim in the article's lead that the games are the third largest sporting event in the world (it doesn't come in National Geographic's top ten), it is still a significant event warranting quality presentation. The only valid reason for deletion would be if different sports had different levels of competition and this would only be relevant if Jewish potential contenders tended to gravitate to certain sports to a greater extent than the general population. GregKaye 13:05, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tx. Just to clarify -- the N Geographic list is not a list of the largest sporting events -- just a subjective list of what the staff subjectively designates "best", and includes in "The 10 Best of Everything" (the # 1 is not the Olympics, in fact, but rather "The 24 Hours of Le Mans, France". The article doesn't conflict with the fact that the Maccabiah Games are -- as the New York Times reports -- the third-largest sporting event in the world.[4][5][6][7][8][9] Epeefleche (talk) 20:53, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: Looks like this discussion is leaning towards keeping, but just an FYI that the claims of "largest games" are usually entirely subjective or (in terms of participants) verifiable falsehoods. Far from the Maccabiah being the third largest in participants, the Olympics itself is actually fifth on this total. The 1994 World Masters Games had more than double the participation of the largest Olympics (10,942 in Bejing 2008). The UN World Peace Games tops the rankings, with the International Workers' Olympiads and Gay Games beating off the Olympics from it's (oft claimed) honour of largest games. SFB 18:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SFB. Tx for acknowledging that the discussion is leaning towards keeping. As to the "third-largest" statement - it is clearly directly supported by The New York Times (and other RSs). And the mantra at WP is verifiability. Which this clearly meets. Epeefleche (talk) 19:59, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Epeefleche: For me that is a guideline to follow when there isn't a supporting source to the contrary (Encyclopedia of International Games in this case). The onus is on us to evaluate contradicting sources, though I agree the verifiability mantra often prevails. I think one of the best things about Wikipedia is its potential to form something entirely new by collating diffuse sources – the nominated category actually being a splendid example of this! SFB 11:24, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that we evaluate contradictory sources; sources that reflect verifiability. In the end -- to discover that which is most verifiable, as reflected by high-level RSs (such as the NY Times). I've never heard of the encyclopedia you refer to, or its author (it appears to be his first book; available in paperback as well as hard copy), and know little about its reputation for reliability. But it is of interest certainly, and if it is more reliable in reputation than the NY Times that would certainly be of interest.
Anyway, we have many, many RSs indicating this to be a verifiable fact. And the International Workers' Olympiads have not taken place since the 1930s, of course. In any event, this seems very much a quibble at best -- it clearly is one of the very largest sporting events in the world, which the NY Times and other RSs say is the third-largest sporting event. So it is certainly, in that regard, a major event. And more importantly, the robust, international, decades-long RS coverage of it shows it to be a notable event from a wikipedia perspective. Epeefleche (talk) 17:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The New York Times has published lots and lots of incorrect information, including referring to The Mormon Church as "formerly" The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. So a claim is not always authoritative. On the matter at hand, how do we measure the "largeness" of an international sporting competition? Is it the number of participants, the number of live spectators, the number of total spectators including those watching on TV? Does the size of the budget to create the events factor in? Do we measure just one Olympics against 1 world cup event, or do we measure all the Olympics from 1896 on against all the World Cup events starting when the World Cup started? Do we factor in those participating in qualifying events not connected to the actual competition itself but needed to get in?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think in general this facet ("largest") is irrelevant to discussions such as this one. My only two factors would be (a) level of independent coverage, and (b) standard of competition. The World Police and Fire Games are immensely participative events, but likely you've never heard of them and the standard is sub-international, so it doesn't warrant category coverage. On the Maccabiah I believe we're failing point (b) but edging into reasonable territory on point (a). SFB 18:25, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RS coverage is of course the core Wikipedia DNA concept. Even if an athlete has not, for example participated in the Olympics (and many of these have), if they have GNG coverage they are nevertheless notable for WP purposes. In fact, the "notable if competed at a high level" second option for notability is based on the supposition that if they have done so, they will have GNG coverage. As the guideline Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states: "An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor, as listed on this page, and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." It all comes back to the question of whether there is GNG coverage. That is the key. Once you have GNG coverage, it is the end of the story ... you don't detract from the individual's notability because of their performance.
And, of course in a cat -- every individual is already individually notable by wp standards in order for them to be reflected in the cats (as is the case with the 150 medal winners currently reflected). So, if "b" above is a personal criterion that you are applying, it is not supported by wp standards. I appreciate you acknowledging (as nom) that this is "edging" into reasonable territory" on level of independent coverage. Epeefleche (talk) 18:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion of this category. Hey Johnpacklambert, if the New York Times says something demonstrably incorrect about your religion, then let's agree to exclude that error from this encyclopedia, along with any other NYT errors. I am sure you will agree that generally reliable Mormon sources, being human, make errors sometimes as well. Whether the Maccabiah Games are the third biggest, or sixth biggest or eleventh biggest sporting competition in the world is not relevant to this debate. These games have been highly notable for many decades, and categorizing notable medal winners by gold, silver and bronze is useful and appropriate. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 00:33, 10 April 2015 (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:Chests

[edit]
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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Chest (furniture). Chest is highly ambiguous. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
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:Benches

[edit]
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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Bench (furniture). Bench is highly ambiguous. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:54, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
  • @Armbrust and Good Olfactory: So what is the problem? What articles will end up in here by accident or makes the name confusing? I think the fact the category is benches and not plain bench makes quite a big difference in the potential ambiguity of the topic. SFB 00:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem for me is that the name format of the category does not match the name format of the main article. I prefer not to get into hypotheticals of how readers/users could be confused. Some users always surprise me in the ways they manage to get confused, so I try to minimise surprises for them. Matching category names to article names is one way to do that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:34, 2 February 2015 (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:Alumni of Queen's Academy

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the category is Royal College, Colombo, and Queen's Academy only redirects to it. Category also only contains 2 articles, and therefore fails WP:OC#SMALL. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:39, 30 January 2015 (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:Cosmopolitanism

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This (newly created) category groups together a range of topics (Anti–nuclear weapons movement, Seriousness, Peace, Globalization terminology, Lifestyle, Humanism ...) and places them under categories such as Category:Human overpopulation. If kept, then this category will need a major purge as it contains, for example both Category:Peace and a number of articles/categories below that category (suggesting that that the category creator isn't familiar with WP:SUBCAT etc). DexDor (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2015 (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:K.d. lang

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC#Eponymous. Unnecessary as all navigation can be done through the artists' articles and their songs and albums categories (which are interlinked as well). The discography page can just be plopped into both of those cats. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the nominator deleted all the categories these categories belong to just before nominating them for deletion, if these categories are kept, the categories should be rolled back to the version prior to the nominator interacting with them. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:49, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator was correct to remove those categories. See related discussion Wikipedia_talk:Categorization#Content_categories_without_visible_parents. DexDor (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. DexDor (talk) 08:20, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet the criteria for eponymous categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per nom. We do not create an eponymous category for every artist who has the standard "article songs category albums category" schematic — we do so only for artists who have a substantial volume of spinoff content that falls outside the standard and normal category options (e.g. Category:Leonard Cohen contains books about Cohen, tribute albums on which other artists perform covers of Cohen's songs, people who attained their notability specifically because they collaborated with Cohen, and on and so forth.) Neither of these artists, however, have the volume of spinoff content necessary to make an eponymous category navigationally useful. Bearcat (talk) 00:02, 4 February 2015 (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:Criminals from the West Midlands (county)

[edit]
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: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. ...William 14:54, 30 January 2015 (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:Young Australian of the Year Award winners

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not an award which is definitive of the subjects categorised (see WP:OCAWARD). Both awards already have lists which are serving the purpose of showing these people within the context of the award. SFB 11:34, 30 January 2015 (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:Sportsmen from Brisbane

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as proposed. This result doesn't preclude further work/changes being done to the category tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being from Brisbane (or any city) does not really affect someone's being a sportsman or sportswoman. The effect of sports provision by gender (or analysis of gender in sports) is typically felt at a national level only. I'm willing to upmerge to the state level on the grounds that this is an existing tree (I may nominate separately later). In sum, a sportsperson's gender is not definitive at a city level. SFB 11:12, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, textbook case of WP:NARROWCAT. I've been meaning to make the same nomination for a while. Even worse, most of the categories are barely half populated – there's nothing worse than when someone breaks a category tree, but then gives up halfway through. For instance, Category:Male cricketers from Perth, Western Australia contains 47 pages, when the fully populated category should contain almost 150 pages. I would also note the non-existence of the categories Category:Players of American football from New York City, Category:Baseball players from Chicago, and Category:Ice hockey people from Toronto. With regard to a potential future CfD of the higher-level (state-based) categories, sport in Australia is typically organised along state lines, so an argument could be mounted for maintaining them. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William 15:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove the gender qualifiers I'm not sure that anyone still refers to much less defines these people as "She's the female cricketer from Foo" rather than "She's the cricketer from Foo". If we keep these gender qualifies we continue the marginalization of pro sportspeople by sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:34, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Subcatting sportspeople by gender is appropriate at the national level, of uncertain utility but beyond the scope of this discussion at the state level, but absolutely not necessary at the individual city level. Bearcat (talk) 00:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Category:Sportswomen from Adelaide was listed for deletion and liked here, so I believe it belongs to this nomination.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • technical oppose this sounds like a good idea but the category merges are all over the place you have merges from location specific to state level mixed gender in some incidences it going to create large categories which will themselves need to be rationalised into smaller parts anyway. Other categories are location & gender specific to location & non gender specific, and some are sport specific by location to non sport specific by state level, even one suggestion that the merger should be to both a parent and a child category, and they are all lumped together... while individually I'd consider support in general to the nongender specific merger(where it doesnt create an over populated category) but not the location-location or location to state nor sport mergers to nonspecific grouping especially for a sport thats the major summer sport, played internationally and an identifier for these sports people ie cricketers. This proposal is so erroneously constructed that editors who havent participated in the discussion will automatically not understand what has taking place and will most likely recreate the cats causing further drama... suggest reconstructing as a gender specific merger proposal, then reassess what that has created then consider which location specific mergers are necessary its not like we have a deadline. Gnangarra 02:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
its says Category:Male cricketers from Perth, Western Australia to Category:Cricketers from Perth, Western Australia and Category:Sportsmen from Western Australia that not gender neetral as per the proposal, its also a parent and child category. but thats not all a cricketer playing for WA isnt necessarily a cricketer from Perth by the way which Perth burb, City of Perth or the perth metro area, then this is further complicated by the BBL which is City based not state based... and then sportsmen from WA will need to rationalised as its too large a field which would need separated into child categories bringing it straight back to where we are now. Its this complexity that makes the proposal erroneously constructed and IMHO its best broken into logical segments where it can be assessed. its probably better to do it through an RFC at WP:AWNB where people who understand the location structures and sports structures in Australia are more likely to respond. Gnangarra 12:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your logic works on a purely semantic basis, but it does not question whether such categories are in anyway definitive of the topic, or what relation the semantic elements bear to each other, which is what my proposal is actually about. SFB 20:04, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you agree logic says what you proposed is flawed, then common sense says that this shouldnt happen. That doesnt mean what your trying achieve doesnt merit just that its needs a more thorough discussion of each element Gnangarra 11:53, 11 February 2015 (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:Dolby Surround 7.1 films

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A non-defining trivial attribute. Compare to the categories films shot in which were previously deleted on the same grounds. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:02, 30 January 2015 (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:American Psychological Association academic journals

[edit]
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 split. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per APA's Full Journal Coverage List, some journals currently in this category are not APA's own journals, but are rather published by APA's Educational Publishing Foundation imprint on behalf of other organizations. E.g., American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:00, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The eixsiting category is not so over-populated as to need splitting. If anyhtingn my reaction would be to upmerge to a category covering all APA's journals, including the ones at are effectively trade rags. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
  • Oppose The cat is certainly not so large that it needs further subdivision. Cats are to help with navigation, making them too fine-grained actually defeats that purpose. In addition, I don't see the use of distinguishing between APA journals and APA's Educational etc journals. Not even the Canadian Psychological Association does this (see here). Nom is creating numerous fine-grained cats. Indeed, until yesterday Canadian Psychology was included in the APA journals cat and Category:Canadian Psychological Association, which seems fine to me. The newly created cat Category:Canadian Psychological Association academic journals, a subcat of Category:Canadian Psychological Association which has 2 (TWO) articles in it, has only 3 (THREE) members and is not likely to become larger any time soon. The comparison with the Elsevier imprints is flawed: Elsevier (and its imprints) publishes over 1000 journals, so diffusing that cat according to imprint makes some sense (although it looks like Elsevier is outphasing several of its imprints and all Academic Press journals, for example, seem to have been transferred to their main imprint). I agree that to distinguish between APA's own journals vs. those it publishes on behalf of others is important and should be mentioned in the articles on those journals. I disagree that this is reason enough to subdivide a reasonably-sized cat into small subcats. I repeat, categories are to aid in navigation, that's all. --Randykitty (talk) 06:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION for a discussion on how too much categories can be detrimental. I had another look at the source that you give and as far as I can see, the foundation does not publish journals on behalf of other societies, but journals that are fully APA owned (see also here under the header "APA Journals"). --Randykitty (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I interpret that additional source differently: "Increasingly, smaller societies turn to APA to publish their journals. Our specialty imprint, the Educational Publishing Foundation (EPF), publishes APA Division and other society journals that are predominately psychological in content." So there are three classes: APA "flagship" journals (published by APA), APA Division journals (published by APA's EPF), and other societies' psychology journals (published by APA's EPF). That middle sub-class muddies the separation a bit, but it's clear where to draw the line splitting the two halves: it terms of publisher. So it's Category:American Psychological Association academic journals and Category:APA's Educational Publishing Foundation academic journals. The listing (rather than categories) can be used for noticing the Division vs. flagship journal distinction. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:25, 31 January 2015 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_30&oldid=1138408699"