Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 25
September 27 >

September 26

[edit]

Category:Boxers from Northern Ireland by populated place

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary container category. It has only one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 20:42, 26 September 2024 (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:Bordeaux tramway stops

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 4#Category:Bordeaux tramway stops

Category:Polish expatriates in the Czech lands

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 4#Category:Polish expatriates in the Czech lands

Category:Sports clubs and teams in Landskrona

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:20, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory each (which happens to be the same subcategory). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2024 (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:Film post-production technology

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Post-production isn't a defining characteristic for these pages Mason (talk) 22:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Response to Johnbod's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:03, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't oppose keeping the companies, but I think that making the distinction between when in the film production process the technology is used seems unhelpful. Mason (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:58, 26 September 2024 (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:Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was already deleted by discussion once. Allan Nonymous (talk) 12:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous discussion is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:Opposition to Ferenc Gyurcsány.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:44, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants in that discussion: @Marcocapelle, Dimadick, and Nederlandse Leeuw. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:46, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping and the link to the previous discussion. NLeeuw (talk) 06:48, 27 September 2024 (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 Association Triple Crown 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: merge to Category:Triple Crown (baseball) winners. Thank you for improving the decorum as the discussion went on. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 12:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:NARROWCAT; there are only going to be two articles here because the league, while considered a major league, was a brief one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Narrow cat definitely applies. Further the pages can just be interlinked. FYI. The wall of text is from the category creator, who isn't engaging in the concerns raised in the nomination and instead seems to assume that the nominator has an agenda. Omnis is making an extremely reasonable nomination. That I would have made had I come across the category first. Mason (talk) 22:52, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, and note that this nomination is A) by the same person who nominated the parent category for deletion less than three months ago, and B) carried out in concert with a series of other moves depopulating the category Category:Major League Baseball Triple Crown winners by removing subcategories for Negro League and American Association players. The supposed rationale for removing the Negro Leagues was that although considered "Major Leagues", they're not part of "Major League Baseball", and therefore only get to go under "baseball", not "Major League Baseball", which must only contain subcategories for the American League and National League. The nominator also didn't bother to notify me of this nomination, which I only discovered when checking what changes had been made to an item on my watchlist.
The overall effect of these moves is to make all other triple crown winners harder to find by adding unnecessary side-branches in the category tree, just so that the main category will only contain American League and National League players. It's ironic that this nomination is based on the category being a small one that can't be expanded, when the nominator has reduced another category (which the nominator previously argued shouldn't even exist) from seven items to four, and seeks to preclude any others from being added to it.
The pretext given is that "Major League Baseball" refers to an organization consisting only of the American League and National League, and therefore excludes all other leagues. This can only cause confusion for readers, who will expect all "Major League" triple crown winners to be included, and either assume incorrectly that there must not be any others, or wonder why they have been excluded. Shunting all other triple crown winners into "baseball" along with topics about the minor leagues and amateur baseball carries the message that they are inherently lesser achievements. Nothing useful is accomplished by making the whole category structure more complicated, and hiding or deleting subcategories so that their members are harder to find. P Aculeius (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius, please see WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH and WP:NARROWCAT; only two articles aren't enough to warrant a category. I apologize for not informing you; I'm guess the Twinkle setting glitched but it was not my intention.
Also see this discussion about this AFD about keeping the leagues distinguished due to Ngl players being deliberately kept out of the two MLB leagues - the NL and the AL - and are distinct leagues because of that. Retroactive recognition by MLB will not change the reality these players played in. Omnis Scientia (talk) 01:20, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You tried to eliminate the parent category, and now less than three months later, you're depopulating it by moving or proposing to delete its subcategories. Your rationale for deleting the American Association category is that it only contains two entries, and can't be expanded; but in the process you're reducing the parent category from seven items to four, and precluding it from being expanded. That looks very much like a pattern, as well as a set-up for renominating the main category for deletion.
Your distinction of "Major League Baseball" consisting only of the American and National Leagues is flawed, both because the description of a "major league" is officially defined to include the American Association and Negro Leagues (as well as several other leagues that didn't produce any triple crown winners), which should therefore be included under the same heading in the category tree; but also because as a legal entity "Major League Baseball" did not exist until 2000, meaning that under your criteria for inclusion there has only been one "Major League Baseball triple crown winner": Miguel Cabrera in 2012. Every other member of the four remaining subcategories preceded the formation of "Major League Baseball", and would thus have to be excluded as well. The distinction that you're making produces a nonsensical result.
The AFD you refer to is about whether it made sense to keep a list of Negro League players who later played in the Major Leagues, which was nominated for deletion because Negro Leaguers are now officially considered Major Leaguers, and therefore all of them played in the Major Leagues. The discussion was closed as "keep" in just over a day since nobody agreed with the nomination. Some of those who replied made a point of how at the time they existed the Negro Leagues were most definitely not considered Major Leagues; but the respondents' point was not that they were not Major Leagues, but that the distinction made prior to integration was relevant to whether such a list was worth having. Thus the AFD to which you refer is not pertinent to this discussion.
The fact that Major League Baseball—and most other organizations devoted to recording the history of the Major Leagues—recognizes the statistics of the Negro Leagues, American Association, Union Association, Players' League, and Federal League on par with those of the American and National Leagues, means that there is no justification for excluding all records other than those of the American and National Leagues from the heading of "Major League Baseball"; it is a distinction without a practical difference. This is not to say that these records should not be grouped by league; doing so is traditional for many reasons. The part that makes no sense is to consider the American and National Leagues together, and keep them separate from the eleven other leagues that are also considered to have been "Major Leagues".
Normally I would agree that a subcategory with only two entries is unnecessary; but all of the other Major League triple crown winners are categories by league, and eliminating the American Association category would require its entries to be diffused into the parent category, which is a container category without any other individual entries. But what you have done is removed the Negro Leagues as well, and shunted them into "baseball" rather than "Major League Baseball". And this makes them harder to find, or to put it another way, makes the category tree harder to navigate. The advantages of keeping all categories of Major League triple crown winners within the same container category outweigh any value in the technical distinction between "Major League Baseball" and "the Major Leagues", or any concern about there being only two entries under "American Association triple crown winners". If you were going to diffuse the latter's members into a parent category, you ought also to diffuse the other subcategories; that would mean fifty-four entries currently sorted into six subcategories.
The whole scheme of moves and deletions produced today only makes a mess of what had been a simple and intuitive category tree, and if it isn't intended to resurrect the argument for deleting the parent category from last June, then its only justification is splitting hairs by distinguishing between "the Major Leagues" and "Major League Baseball"—itself a dubious proposition, since the American and National Leagues were separate entities until 2000. This nomination should be withdrawn, since the category is justified as a necessary subcategory of a container category that should include the nominated category's contents, along with the two Negro League categories that were simultaneously removed from it—and which should be restored. P Aculeius (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius, I won't be reading through that since you're clearly not assuming good faith. All I will say is that my only object to the MLB triple crown category was the term "winners" since I don't think its something which can be won but rather should be earned. Of course, many people thought otherwise and made good arguments which I ultimately agree with so I respect that.
And the Ngl categories are still seperate from MLB ones; hence why I referred to the AFD because I wasn't going to make that argument all over again when many have done so there eloquently. That's the current status quo; its complicated and you can disagree but that's how it was decided.
But none of that complicated debate has anything to do with THIS CFD which is based on WP:NARROWCAT and nothing else. I would appreciate if you don't derail this Cfd with long, unreadable texts which are unrelated. MLB is the NL and AL to most people who don't even know about the brief leagues before modern MLB began at the turn of the 20th-century. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, in most cases I would have immediately supported a nomination like this. The reason I didn't, this time, is because the target contains almost no articles in the root, and it is not likely there will be other articles any time soon (if only because this is not a batch nomination). I am not against the merge but the navigational benefit of the merge is limited. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle, it is quite tricky in this case because their achievements are very different and the league's records aren't fully documented. I do think there is a solution where these two articles and their achievements can be better and more specifically categorized. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:54, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Omnis Scientia: can you please elaborate what the solution would be? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle, well two solutions. I've been skimming through MLB categories and, as I've mentioned above but now can confirm, the only leagues fully categorized are the AL and NL - by achievement, by awards, etc. - due to them being the two leagues have defined MLB over a century (150 years in one case). So the simplest and, IMO, best solution is to delete this category as the list suffices.
      The second is not the best but the "Triple Crown (baseball)" category be divided into pitching and hitting and this way, the two articles can be better categorized and the KBO players in the list can be added there too. But, again, I would much rather just delete this category rather than wade into what would can potentionally become a complicated category tree if we try to categorize this league and others like it in the way the current MLB ones are. I don't think its worth the trouble just for the sake of two articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Omnis Scientia: correct me if I'm wrong, if you think only AL and NL should stay, are you planning to propose upmerging the Nippon and Negro categories as well? If that is the case a batch nomination would be more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        @Marcocapelle, no because those aren't old MLB leagues - Nippon is the Japanese major league and Negros Leagues were the MLB equivalent for African American players - they recently recognized as such - back when MLB was segregated. Hence why they aren't in the MLB category and why I created a new "Triple Crown (baseball)" category to house them.
        The American Association (AA) was once part of MLB in the 19th-century but folded after a few years - and, unlike the others, which have multiple people to achieve this distinction, it had relatively few stars. In this case, the two players in this category achieved two different things which are related only by name. So applying WP:NARROWCAT seemed reasonable to me. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Adding to this: I moved the American Association category to this one because I assumed this was a straight forward nomination and merging would be made easier this way. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: if its not against the rules, please disregard the category creator's oppose vote and base closing this category based on the others. The creator was assuming bad faith and insinuating that I had an agenda by starting this Cfd. Their vote is not based on any policy but entirely on attacking my intentions. If anything, please read my reasoning and close or relist based on that. Best regards, Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:16, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second note to closer: please disregard the above bad faith comment—I'm not assuming here; if the nomination was not in bad faith, the above comment clearly is. I gave several valid reasons for opposing this proposal, then elaborated on them when the nominator rejected them, only to have the nominator state point blank that he refused to read what I said. Being the category creator is not a valid reason for having my opposition disregarded, nor is pointing out that the nominator previously tried to eliminate the parent category, and subsequently removed most of its contents after that nomination failed—particularly when the rationale for this nomination is that the category is small. But I will restate my other reasons for opposing the nomination:
(1) Major League Baseball officially recognizes both the American Association and the Negro Leagues as "major leagues", and that all major references prior to the inclusion of the latter already included American Association records as "major league" records (along with several others that are universally so treated), making the distinction being drawn by the nominator both technical and idiosyncratic.
(2) The American League and National League were themselves separate entities, and did not amalgamate into "Major League Baseball" until 2000; by insisting that a category listing major league baseball triple crown winners should only include players from "Major League Baseball", the nominator is excluding all National League triple crown winners and all but one of the American League winners as well. This creates an unexplained inconsistency, since these and all of their contents are still subcategories.
(3) Readers would naturally expect to find all major league triple crown winners in the same category, rather than having the American and National Leagues in one subcategory, and all other major league triple crown winners in the same category with Japanese and Korean baseball (and presumably any other international or minor leagues that might have produced triple crowns). The resulting category structure is confusing and counterintuitive; it does a disservice to readers by hiding subcategories that they would expect to find in the main category, giving the impression that there are no other major league triple crown winners, or alternatively that they are not on par with those of the American or National Leagues, when they have been officially so declared, and when those of the nominated category have always been so considered. P Aculeius (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@P Aculeius, respectfully, you did not at all give any reasons with regards to THIS nomination and that's why I did not read through all your reasons. You went on a rant about baseball leagues which should be discussed on WP:Baseball, not on here. Please don't derail this Cfd with unrelated topics. This is a straight forward WP:NARROWCAT and the two Triple Crown winners won two different types of triple crowns; on top of that AA league leaders aren't categorized (same case with all defunct leagues). Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is a lot of noise here. This is a content forum, not a conduct forum. If you think someone is acting in bad faith, WP:ANI is thataway. So – everyone – knock it off. With that out of the way: More uninvolved participation is needed to form consensus. Should we have some articles directly in Category:Triple Crown (baseball) winners?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:10, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster, my apologies. I only nominated this as a simple WP:NARROWCAT nomination and for no other reason. I honestly didn't expect such a huge reaction from the creator when I was simply following the policy set by the Baseball WikiProject. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, how about deleting this category? merging will not help and since there isn't really a place where these can be properly categorized - that would require a further split into two categories like the rest - deletion is the best course IMO. Defunct MLB leagues' - regardless of status - statistical leaders aren't categorized as it is.
Asking for a consensus here. Thanks. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:56, 21 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, @Marcocapelle, just re-pinging so we can reach a consensus here. I think deletion per WP:NARROWCAT is a better option here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete also fine with me Mason (talk) 11:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need more participation to form consensus. Thank you all for turning down the temperature here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nederlandse Leeuw: if I may be so bold to ask you to break a stalemate here. To summarize a WP:NARROWCAT situation with only two articles and while both did win Triple Crowns, they won two different types of triple crowns each in two different disiplines which are meant to be categorized seperately. I'm proposing deletion since these two are already listified in "Triple Crown (baseball)" - and hence won't be lost - and further categorization will only complicate the tree and navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ask you mainly because you're one of the more active participants I know about around here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2024 (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:Inductees of the Chicago LGBT Hall of Fame

[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. Star Mississippi 02:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A non-defining characteristic. User:Namiba 17:14, 26 September 2024 (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:Android's versions

[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 to Category:Android (operating system) versions. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's very unusual to have a possessive in the title of a category like this. Largoplazo (talk) 16:46, 26 September 2024 (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:Economy of the Republic of Artsakh

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in this category, this is not helpful for navigation. Former country trees do not have to have an economy subcat per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2024 (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:Ottoman Psara

[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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page is this category. Upmerge for now. Mason (talk) 00:26, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. –BarntToust(Talk) 00:45, 26 September 2024 (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/2024_September_26&oldid=1249466640"