Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 21 October 23 >

October 22[edit]

Jacksonville Tea Men[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 all. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (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:Emmerich Kálmán[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:16, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. An unnecessary layer of categorization per WP:OC#Eponymous, since all articles are on works by Emmerich Kálmán which are already in the more appropriate Category:Operas by Emmerich Kálmán and its parent Category:Compositions by Emmerich Kálmán per convention. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:51, 22 October 2013 (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:Parade High School All-Americans[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. I'm not going to point fingers, but I think some users on both sides of the argument presented reasons that were not very well founded in guidelines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Being named an "All-American" in high school by the magazine your newspaper gives away free on Sundays with the coupons is not a defining characteristic. Fails WP:OC#AWARD. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 14:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The honor is historic in nature - the oldest high school All-American designation in America. Like it or not, there is high interest in high school sports in America, and this designation is certainly notable enough for a category. Rikster2 (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Notability is not the standard for categorization; definingness is. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is an award category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • oh we don't? That's actually not what the guideline quoted by the nominator says - it says there may be exceptions. And in truth there are hundreds of Award categories - such as Category:Best Drama Actress Golden Globe (television) winners. I would argue that this designation (there is no physical award) is an exception because being a top, highly decorated high school player actually is a defining characteristic for many. Rikster2 (talk) 11:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is an important honor and a way to distinguish biographies in the relevant subjects.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That's a whole lot of articles already tagged with these categories and relevant to this article (which could use some clean-up) as well as numerous articles about individual athletes. Nomination appears to be based on a rather ill-informed notion about the prestige of the award for American athletes. These categories were created in adherence with the WP:CAT guideline and are actively maintained. Hmlarson (talk) 20:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A lot of articles tagged" is irrelevant. "Actively maintained" is irrelevant. Can you cite some reliable sources that indicate that being named an All-American by Parade magazine is the sort of high honor contemplated by WP:OC#AWARD?
  • When considering whether an athlete is notable, the criteria discuss playing for a professional league. Being named a high school All-American by a circular would not be sufficient to claim that an athlete is notable; it strains credulity to think that something that doesn't even make an athlete notable is somehow a defining characteristic of that athlete. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For many athletes who aren't great pros but where seen as elite high school athletes, being a high school All-American absolutely could be seen as a defining characteristic of their careers. In that section you quote, there are criteria for non-professionals btw. High school and college sports get a lot of press in the US and have for longer than you've been alive. This would certainly be as much a defining characteristic as ancestry or place of birth IMO. Rikster2 (talk) 18:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there are criteria for non-professional athletes, which include sustained independent coverage. Being named an All-American by Parade by itself doesn't meet that standard. Would still like to see the sources that indicate this rises to the level of high honor contemplated by the guideline. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a requirement of a category to prove notability. Abe Lincoln isn't notable because he's a "person from Spencer County, Indiana." The category is an indicator that someone was an elite HS player. Many elite HS athletes meet GNG before ever appearing in a college or professional game. Why don't you define the level of high honor contemplated by the guideline - because the guideline certainly doesn't spell it out. Rikster2 (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Categories are not used to establish notability on Wikipedia - that's what references are for. Hmlarson (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not say that categories establish notability. What I said is that I'd like to see sources that attest to the stature of being named an All-American by Parade magazine. If it is truly such an honor then there should be sources that say so.
  • You can start with a search on the ESPN website 1 and the fact that the award is often mentioned in the bios of and news articles about pro athletes 2, 3, 4. While not a secondary source, here is an example of an article noting the history of the award and associated prestige. 5 Hmlarson (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That only 27 articles from ESPN's archives include mention of this honorific strikes me as an argument against its being of defining prestige. If it were so prestigous it would get a lot more hits. The Bleacher Report blog articles don't discuss the honorific as being prestigious and one of them even notes that the recipient didn't receive it for playing the position for which she is known. Even the two Parade sources themselves don't support the idea that the honorific rises to the level of defining as each talks about how far beyond such a designation the article's subjects have gone. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the standard envisioned by the guideline, Here's a partial listing of deletion discussions over the last several years relating to awards categories that I stumbled across a couple of months ago that gives a pretty good idea of where community consensus sets the bar. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Per Rikster2, high school/college sports is big news in America, which for a European is quite difficult to understand (or it was for me anyway). One of the things on the page about 'definingness' is whether it would be appropriate in the lead section. Would being a high school All-American be appropriate in the lead? Yeah, I think it would. I only really edit soccer articles but a lead which said "Parade High School All-American ... played for such-and-such a club ... won 100 caps .. blah blah" would be ok, I think. It certainly wouldn't strike me as inappropriate. Clavdia chauchat (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a conflation, though, of two different senses of "All American". The NCAA and some other governing bodies have an official AA designation. This is just a listing in a giveaway magazine, what amounts to a publicity stunt. It's akin to being named Person of the Year or Sexiest Man Alive or any of a hundred other honorifics bestowed as gimmicks by publications looking to boost numbers. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:34, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, YOU keep harping on Parade's distribution method - which is frankly a red herring. In truth, it's the oldest and one of the most established HS All-America designations in American - and by far one of the most recognized historically. Heck, the boys' basketball category has had almost 600 views in the last month - that's on the level of many articles. This tells me the category is being actively used by readers. Rikster2 (talk) 01:38, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The oldest" is irrelevant, as is "one of the most established" (which doesn't mean anything anyway, it's either established or it isn't). If it's so widely historically recognized as being defining of the people so categorized then there should be rafts of reliable sources to support the prestige that supposedly goes along with the designation. I have asked several times for such sources and none have been provided. And the distribution of the source material is certainly relevant to the esteem in which the publication is held and the attendant prestige of any award or honorific it dispenses. Why these categories, which accumulate on articles that already attract a lot of categories, are superior to lists which can be sourced, organized by year, etc. remains a mystery. Not every single fact about every single person is a suitable subject for categorization. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:58, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • you are completely wrong. Distribution method is wholly irrelevant, however you keep throwing it out there because you think it makes the designation sound cheaper. You can stop now if you actually think your case is sound without that tactic. Why would a list necessarily be a better way of representing this? You'd throw in any non-notable person who achieved the designation in addition to the notable people with articles. Seems a lot harder for a reader to sort through this if they just want to know who has received this honor (and again, 600 folks in men's basketball did just that in a month before basketball season had even started). Looking at the list you provided earlier, I certainly think this is on par with those that were kept. Rikster2 (talk) 02:12, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, distribution means nothing in assessing the quality of a source, except oh wait, guidelines for sources specifically discuss distribution in assessing the quality of a source. And sorry, the prestige of the naming publication bears directly on the prestige of the award and thus on the definingness of the award per relevant guideline. Still waiting, by the way, for the litany of reliable sources that attest to the prestige of these particular designations. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here you Go - Feel free to sift through these hundreds of articles via Google News Archives (keep in mind that only a fraction of American newspapers are indexed here) from secondary, reputable sources calling out the fact that players were Parade All-Americans as a pretty central part of the players' identities. The search term was "signed Parade All-American." Rikster2 (talk) 12:57, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but totting up Google hits doesn't cut it. You can enter pretty much any string of words in Google and you'll get hits. Doesn't establish that the award is prestigious or defining. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should have actually clicked the link, Jerry. It isn't a standard Google search (which of course would have been dominated by Wikipedia articles, mirror versions of Wikipedia articles and Parade itself). It is a Google News Archives serch, meaning that the search was directed towards news sites and scanned/indexed newspapers. What you find is that the term "Parade All-American" is used constantly to describe college recruits and is used to define that they are quality recruits who the reader (who usually have an interest in the university's athletic programs) should be impressed with. Examples:
  • "Five-star offensive lineman and Parade All-American Jordan Diamond signed with Auburn at his school, Simeon Career Academy in Chicago"
  • "ODU women: Parade All-American Atwater won't attend ODU" (headline)
  • "The Rebels also welcomed back Dou Innocent, a sophomore running back who was a Parade All-American two years ago."
  • "The 1991 Parade All-American knows a little bit about beating a two-deep zone as well, said Texas strong safety Lance Gunn"
  • "He said he would decide sometime before the game whether freshman Parade All-American Rodney Williams or senior Keith Weaver would do the punting"
  • "McGrew, a 6-foot-3, 270-pound Parade All-American out of Lafayette (Fla.) High, has spent the last month on the sidelines while the NCAA mulled over a whether a ninth grade applied math class he took should count among his core eligibility credits"
There are hundreds of such references. Why? Because people recognize the Parade All-America teams as being a standard of ability for top high school athletes. And again, the site only includes a fraction of the newspapers in the US in its database, so while the search results are indicative, it is by no means an exhaustive list. Rikster2 (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I did check the link, and as I suspected, it was page after page of mentions of the honorific and nothing supporting the notion that the honorific was considered so prestigious and defining as to warrant categories. What I'm looking for, and sorry if this hasn't been made abundantly clear, are not sources in which the designation is mentioned. What I am looking for are sources that discuss the designation itself, separate and distinct from mentions of the designated athletes, that discuss how the designation is perceived. Not an unfounded assumption that because it gets mentioned it must be important, but sources that attest to its actual importance. Sources that discuss whether and how the designation affects the designee's college prospects, for example, or endorsement prospects, their chances of getting laid, even. Any such sources that are award-centric, not athlete-centric. Sources that are about the athletes that simply mention the designation do not speak to the prestige of the designation. At all. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hundreds of examples of the honor being called out to describe recruits in such a way that the reader is meant to infer they are great players would be "defining" them. However, I think you have made your opnion quite known and are not the sole decider of this category's fate. So I've put some research out there that others can weigh in on and an admin can make a final call on this. Rikster2 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing out that I'm not the sole decider of the category's fate. That was completely necessary because I've never participated in a CFD before. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:32, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem, man, I'm here to help. You telling me what "you are looking for" made me wonder. Rikster2 (talk) 20:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please quote the specific part of the guideline that indicates that a magazine's insertion into newspapers has any bearing whatsoever on this discussion. and it is your opinion, not a fact that Parade's specific distribution method somehow cheapens this designation to the point where the categories shouldn't exist. Saying sokething in a smart ass tone doesn't make it correct, Jerry. Parade has a circulation of over 32 million btw. Rikster2 (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So they've convinced a bunch of newspapers to let them insert their free magazine. Good for them, Doesn't mean anyone who gets it even reads it on their way to the Junior Jumble and it doesn't mean that being the subject of the magazine's promotional gimmick is defining of the players. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still waiting for the specific part of the guideline that indicates that a magazine's insertion into newspapers has any bearing whatsoever on this discussion. Rikster2 (talk) 12:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You did, and I have complied. Seems like my request should have been a little simpler for you to comply with, though. Rikster2 (talk) 20:27, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - simply not notable. GiantSnowman 15:39, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - people should be categorized by how they achieved notabilty (e.g. in a "<nationality> <sport> players" category) and not (in most/all cases) by what awards they have received. That a characteristic is sufficiently important to be mentioned in the article (even in the lead) does not necessarily mean it should be used to categorize by. DexDor (talk) 06:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That categories should only be for those traits that support notability is not present in either the guideline or common practice. Subjects' notability often (usually?) doesn't rest on their status as an Eagle Scout, or a Purple Heart winner, or a Golden Globe winner, or an American of Croatian descent, or a Scientologist, or a person from York. Rikster2 (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Each category is judged on its own merits. The existence of one means nothing regarding the existence of another. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 11:47, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and yet it is the categories that exist and don't (especially those like "Eagle Scouts" who have gone through a CfD review) that establish precedent and help guide us in decisions like this one where there is grey area about whether or not the category should exist. But my note was specifically in response to the assertion that categories should be for items that make a subject notable - a claim that you personally refuted earlier in this discussion so you should agree. Rikster2 (talk) 12:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose clearly a useful category with a good number of articles within it.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2013 (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:Fishing law[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:19, 1 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I believe that the latter would more accurately describe the focus of articles included in the category. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2013 (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:30 Rock episode images[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three files. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 00:13, 22 October 2013 (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:Cary RailHawks U23 players[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 08:13, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 00:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 00:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, no need for seperate categories that deal with same topic. GiantSnowman 12:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Fenix down (talk) 11:38, 23 October 2013 (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/2013_October_22&oldid=1138398704"