Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 17: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 14: Line 14:
* '''Rename''' per nom and also per [[:King Edward VII School (Johannesburg)]]. [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
* '''Rename''' per nom and also per [[:King Edward VII School (Johannesburg)]]. [[User:Occuli|Occuli]] ([[User talk:Occuli|talk]]) 00:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
* '''Rename''' per nom. There are indeed other categories for Old Edwardians from other Schools. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 00:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
* '''Rename''' per nom. There are indeed other categories for Old Edwardians from other Schools. --[[User:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''Bduke'''</span>]] [[User_talk:Bduke|<span style="color:#002147;">'''(Discussion)'''</span>]] 00:31, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
*'''REname''' per nom. The present category, would properly include old boys of Stourbridge Grammar School, and numerous other schools founded (or refounded) under Edward VI. [[User:Peterkingiron|Peterkingiron]] ([[User talk:Peterkingiron|talk]]) 22:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


====Category:Novels by character====
====Category:Novels by character====

Revision as of 22:35, 18 February 2009

< February 16 February 18 >

February 17

Category:Old Edwardians

Propose renaming Category:Old Edwardians to Category:Old Edwardians (Johannesburg)
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other Old Edwardian categories, and to avoid possible confusion. DuncanHill (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Novels by character

Category:Novels by character (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Or that - I thought my variant easier to understand - we seem to be getting longer & more complex category titles these days. I would support renaming the parent too (... you know, not "Old series"). The lack of a distinct plural for "series" doesn't help. Johnbod (talk) 23:07, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "series" is a serious bother. How about serieses? :) But in all seriousness, I actually think most readers get that it's plural from the context, since it's generally understood that categories are for multiplicities. So I think we can safely continue with Category:Novel series, and by extension, Category:Novel series by main character. Cgingold (talk) 23:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if you look at the super-cat, Category:Series, you'll see that all but one of the sub-cats also use the form "Xyz series". Cgingold (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame

Category:North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete Overcategorization by relatively minor sporting award. A list already exists at List of members of the North Carolina Sports Hall of Fame. (If kept for some reason, category needs to be renamed to an "inductees" category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Stanford Athletic Hall of Fame

Category:Stanford Athletic Hall of Fame - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by relatively minor sporting award. An excellent list already exists at Stanford Cardinal#Stanford Athletic Hall of Fame, where all inductees are sorted by sport. (If kept for some reason, category needs to be renamed to an "inductees" category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Italian American Sports Hall of Fame

Category:Italian American Sports Hall of Fame - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by minor sporting award. There is no article for the Italian American Sports Hall of Fame, so a better approach would be to create an article and begin listing the inductees. The main article is National Italian American Sports Hall of Fame, where a list of inductees could be be started. Right now there are only 2 articles in the category, so listification might not be worth it yet. (If kept for some reason, category needs to be renamed to Category:National Italian American Sports Hall of Fame inductees.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports lore and subcategories

Propose deleting/merging these

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Merger criteria for inclusion subjective, violates WP:POV Mayumashu (talk) 18:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: While I support the general thrust of this nomination, I noticed after looking at a few that there are problems with the tagging. For example, Category:Professional wrestling lore is tagged for renaming instead of merging. And the links for this CFD aren't properly anchored to this section heading -- they all need a piped parameter at the end for "Category:Sports lore and subcategories". So I'm withholding my endorsement until all such problems are taken care of. Also, it would be a good idea to provide a link to the CFD for NBA lore. Cgingold (talk) 19:56, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the wrestling lore cat page tag now correct. I haven t figured out the piping bit yet - may try more later Mayumashu (talk) 22:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Assuming the obvious' and 'local bias' (ie. personal bias). What makes one event from the history of an item 'sports lore' and not another? One's opinion. And just because a lot of people agree that a certain item should belong or that a particular page listed has a lot of items does not remove the POV nature of these lists. Mayumashu (talk) 17:25, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the word 'lore' and its connotation of 'legendary'. Folklore is different because events and people there may or may not have existed (and therefore the word 'legend' assumes its primary meaning. Here, attributing legendary status on an actual event or person is simply to give one's opinion. Perhaps there should be a Category:Sport(s) history to collect notable occurrences in the history of sport(s)? Mayumashu (talk) 17:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you would have looked, you would have found that we already have Category:History of sports, with subcategories like Category:History of American football and Category:History of boxing. Also, as noted above, this nomination was poorly done. None of the links on the links on the nominated categories point to the right section on this page, and some of the categories were never nominated in the first place. - Eureka Lott 18:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to auto-assessment categories

Nominated categories
  • Propose to delete all of the above categories. Each of these is an empty category that contains a redirect template pointing to an auto-assessment category. Auto-assessment categories are auto-populated by WikiProject templates (for example, Category:Unknown-importance Xbox articles is populated by {{Xboxp}})—there is no reason that any user should ever have to (or should ever) put a page into one of these categories by typing the name of the category manually. Likewise, there is no reason any user should ever be searching for these category names, since they are generally listed on and linked from the WikiProject's own page. Accordingly, I don't think these redirects (generally left over from when older category naming schemes were changed) serve any useful purpose. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: These are causing problems for templates trying to determine which categories to link to. For example, the categories at Category:Sri Lanka articles by quality all link to the wrong "Unassessed" page. --Pascal666 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: At least the Unassessed-Class need deleting as when both Unassessed-Class & Unassessed versions of the categories exist, {{cat class}} links to the wrong one, so they need deleting. As for the others, I'm not fussed either way. -- WOSlinker (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This sounds like a good idea. Mostly I just want to say I'm glad to see these redirect cats dealt with in a more focused way, a decided improvement over the original mass nomination proposal. Cgingold (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Have the relevant WikiProjects been notified? These redirects may serve some other purpose, e.g. because {{cat class}} would not otherwise link to the category. That's what the film category was being used for, but it is no longer needed and can be deleted. No opinion on the rest. PC78 (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that {{cat class}} contains a series of conditional statements similar to the following (with white space added for readability):
{{#ifexist:Category:Image-Class {{{topic|}}} articles
  | <td style="background: #ddccff;"> [[:Category:Image-Class {{{topic|}}} articles|Image]]</td>
  | {{#ifexist:Category:Image-Class {{{topic|}}} pages
      | <td style="background: #ddccff;"> [[:Category:Image-Class {{{topic|}}} pages|Image]]/td>
      |
    }}
}}
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_17&oldid=271678004"