Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 June 20

< June 19	June 21 >

June 20

Category:American Samoan players of American football

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. Courcelles 21:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Samoan players of American football to Category:Players of American football from American Samoa

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for players of American football who are from American Samoa, or of American Samoan "nationality". However, I have been involved in patrolling the category, and it is constantly mistaken as meaning "American players of American football who are of Samoan descent". (There are many players of American football who are from California and Utah who are of Samoan descent, but they are not "American Samoan", ie, they are not from American Samoa.) I think a rename would assist with the confusion/ambiguity. Most of the other subcategories of Category:American Samoan sportspeople use the "American Samoan FOO" format, but I think we need to make an exception in this case to solve the ambiguity. This is the same format used for the by-state subcategories of Category:American players of American football by state, eg, Category:Players of American football from California. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Seems like a better and clearer name. --Kumioko (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2011 (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:Colorado Women's Hall of Fame

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. Courcelles 21:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete. This is categorizing inductees to the Colorado Women's Hall of Fame. This is a minor, non-defining "award" and as such the inductees should be listified rather than categorized. I suggest a list of inductees by added to Colorado Women's Hall of Fame and the category be deleted per WP:OC#AWARD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me understand this a bit more. Is there information that would help justify why the category was set up? Or, maybe something I need to understand about why it's preferrable to remove a category (which I thought was preferred to lists). Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess WP:OC#AWARD is a guideline that can assist in this, as being inducted into a hall of fame is a type of "award". There is no inherent preference for categories over lists or vice versa, but the community often makes decisions that certain information is more appropriate for a category or more appropriate for a list. For awards, the thinking has been that lists are almost always preferrable, since many people are given many awards in their lifetime, and to categorize by all of them could quickly overwhelm the page on some biographies. So I would say that for all but the most significant halls of fame, lists are preferable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, I'll move the names to a list in the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC) Done It's now an empty category and ready for deletion.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:14, 23 June 2011 (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.

Years in Lombardy

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 all. Courcelles 21:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1995 in Lombardy to Category:1995 in Italy

Propose merging Category:2000 in Lombardy to Category:2000 in Italy

Propose merging Category:2005 in Lombardy to Category:2005 in Italy

Nominator's rationale: Merge. There are 3 non-consecutive years each with 1 article in each, which seems to few to separate from the Years in Italy. Tim! (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2011 (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:2008 in Tripoli, Lebanon

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. Courcelles 21:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:2008 in Tripoli, Lebanon to Category:2008 in Lebanon

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Only contains 1 article and does not appear to part of a larger system. Tim! (talk) 20:33, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support both above mergers (Lombardy and Tripoli) Hugo999 (talk) 12:51, 28 June 2011 (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:Football templates

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football squad templates to Category:Association football squad templates

Nominator's rationale: For clarity, per Category:Association football team templates. I am listing this here, rather than at WP:CFD/S, because I am not sure whether the term "squad" actually is used with regard to types of football other than association football. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for clarity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2011 (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:Romanian people in historic Hungary

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. Courcelles 21:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Romanian people in historic Hungary to Category:Romanian people in the history of Hungary

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent cat title. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2011 (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.

Northern League baseball teams

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 Category:Northern League teams and upmerge the other two to Category:Northern League (baseball, 1993–2010) teams. Since all are now defunct, we can make the new category a subcategory of Category:Defunct independent baseball league teams.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Northern League teams to Category:Northern League (baseball, 1993–2010) teams

Nominator's rationale: Rename to ~~match the parent article, Northern League (baseball)~~ (will be moved to proposed dab as well), as there have been numerous Northern League's throughout the world. Additionally, given the Northern League is now defunct, I propose merging the following two categories:

Reso lute 14:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support the merges for sure. As for the rename if there are categories for the other leagues then definitely rename to disambig them. Otherwise no real need to disambig. -DJSasso (talk) 14:23, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before we do this, all the Northern League stuff is going to have to be renamed to Northern League (baseball, 1993-2010), to differentiate from Northern League (baseball, 1902–71). Once that's done, I support merging these categories under that banner. -Dewelar (talk) 15:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. That would be the better merge target. So adjusted. Reso lute 15:19, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The lack of categories for other northern leagues would make this a more needed move because it would mean teams associated with northern leagues that lack categories would be even more likely to end up here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the main category per nom, upmerge the "former" category, and upmerge to both parents Category:Defunct Northern League teams so that the articles it contains are not removed from Category:Defunct independent baseball league teams. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:02, 28 June 2011 (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:Grey Cup champions

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. A second nomination to consider a rename to something along the lines of Category:Grey Cup winning players would be welcome. Courcelles 21:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Trivially broad category (prior to me removing him, John Candy was in here for having partial ownership of the Argonauts.) Note that there is no equivalent Category:World Series champions or Category:Superbowl champions. Creation of a more reasonable Category:Grey Cup champion seasons] along the lines of Category:World Series champion seasons is feasible. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:41, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Category:Stanley Cup champions. If broadness is a concern, could rename to Category:Grey Cup champion players. Reso lute 14:12, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see a problem with the category. I would agree that if broadness was a concern it could be renamed. But I don't see it as being a concern at all. -DJSasso (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I find it a bit weird that we would categorize individual players for having been on a championship winning team, and I think it's telling that the only sports in which we seem to do this are Canadian-centric sports (NHL hockey and Canadian football). In team sports, teams win championships, not individual players. (It probably has something to do with the Stanley Cup's tradition of inscribing the name of every player and coach on the trophy, but that doesn't really explain this Grey Cup category.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Grey Cup has the same tradition. However, it will be out of space after 2012, and there has been speculation that the trophy's base will be redesigned for 2013 that would leave names off. That being said, while I agree that teams win championships, there is a strong argument that winning a championship team is defining of a player. But there may be better ways of categorizing. Reso lute 14:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I didn't know that. I guess that probably explains why these two categories exist—they are the trophies that inscribe the players' names on it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose In Canadian Football and NHL Hockey your legacy is defined in part by whether or not you won the Grey Cup/Stanley Cup and if so how many times, your name is engraved on the actual trophy much in the same ways as hockey players with the Stanley Cup. Unlike the American Based sports (NFL, NBA, MLB). Teams are allowed to engrave Owners, players, staff etc. that is why I included John Candy's Name along with that of Bruce McNall and Wayne Gretzky as owners of the 1991 Toronto Argonauts. All 3 Names are Engraved on the Trophy. I too do not see a problem with the Broadness of the Category. It can be said too that your legacy as a professional sports owner is determined by whether or not you team/teams are successful for example George Steinbrenner's legacy would have been much different had the Yankees not 4 World Series titles from 1996-2000. In Boston Jeremy Jacobs may well now be viewed differently since his Boston Bruins took home the Stanley Cup (His Name will be engraved on it), Mike Illitch may well be viewed as little more than a Wealthy Pizza Chain Owner Had the Detroit Red Wings Not won 4 Stanley Cups in 11 years. Michael Drew (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2011 (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:Swell Records albums

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. Courcelles 21:23, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: redlink record label. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed a band from this category, and now there is only one entry. And that current entry is at WP:PROD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 18:02, 21 June 2011 (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:Modern Russian tanks

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: selectively merge per BlackFalcon.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Indeterminate scope. Also every page here can be described as Category:Main battle tanks of Russia. Marcus Qwertyus 02:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it should be moved to Category:Post-Cold War tanks of Russia. —Michael Z. 2011-06-20 04:47 z

keep. There is nothing indeterminate. Just the opposite: there were different states Russian Empire, there was Soviet Union, which included Russia, and there is Russian Federation. All these states had tanks, and all were called "Russian tanks" (formally or informally). Another thing is that the categories must be renamed per parent category: "Tanks by country", i.e.,:
- RENAME Category:World War I tanks of Russia-> Category:Tanks of the Russian Empire
- RENAME Category:Modern Russian tanks-> Category:Tanks of the Russian Federation

And Cold War has nothing to do with this. Logofat de Chichirez (talk) 15:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the subcategories of Category:Tanks_by_era. Tanks and other AFVs are categorized by period, by country, and for some reason also by the cross of the two. —Michael Z. 2011-06-21 04:30 z

Rename to Category:Tanks of Russia. The general rule of thumb is Russia refers to the country that has existed since 1992, Soviet Union covers 1917-1991, and Russian Empire covers before 1918 back into the 16th century, which means to long before the start of tanks. A relevant guide is the Category:Imperial Russian emigrants to the United States, Category:Soviet emigrants to the United States and Category:Russian emigrants to the United States rubric.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Tanks of Russia (and then cleanup) per above or, better yet, selectively merge. The current scheme of Category:Tanks suggests that all tanks should be categorized by three characteristics: country, era and type. So, with that in mind,
- Move Black Eagle (tank) into Category:Main battle tanks of Russia (type and country) - currently in Category:Main battle tanks of the post-Cold War period (type and era)
- Move T-80 into Category:Main battle tanks of the Soviet Union and Category:Main battle tanks of Russia (type and country) - currently in Category:Main battle tanks of the Cold War and Category:Main battle tanks of the post-Cold War period (type and era)
- Move T-80 models into Category:Tanks of Russia - not all of these are main battle tanks, so the MBTs of Russia category is not quite appropriate
- Remove the category from T-90 and T-95 - currently in Category:Main battle tanks of Russia (type and country) and Category:Main battle tanks of the post-Cold War period (type and era)
- -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:39, 28 June 2011 (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:Earthworm Jim

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. 23:43, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Propose renaming Category:Earthworm Jim to Category:Earthworm Jim (series)

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suppor per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2011 (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.