Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

June 23[edit]

Category:Indian male presenters[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, though no one seemed to have particularly strong opinions on the matter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am sure that a similarly gendered category for TV presenters was deleted at CFD, but I can't find the discussion. I am neutral on this one for now, because I think that there is a case to be made that gender is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of this occupation. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 12 May 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, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would say, personally, that gender is only a defining characteristic to be subcategorized separately, if there have been serious discussions about gender for this category, or if the distribution between the two genders is very skewed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If we had categories for "Individual men" etc then category intersection (WP:CATSCAN) could generate a list of articles about Indian male presenters etc. Has this ever been seriously considered? Otherwise, we're going to continually be having these discussions at CFD. DexDor (talk) 11:43, 29 May 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, Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Given that no one has identified a reason not to merge, it probably should be done. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2014 (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:Diagnostic test[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) 00:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Had one page, which I moved to "Medical tests". Also nominating "Medical diagnostic" parent category, which has no other children. Martin BerkaT|C 20:27, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thanks for disclosing the one article that was moved.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although this does have a potential lead article, Diagnostic test, I'm not clear how you would have a hard and fast rule for breaking this out from medical tests in general.RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 25 June 2014 (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:Jewish composers and songwriters[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: split into Category:Jewish composers and Category:Jewish songwriters and appropriate subcategories; delete once split is done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The problem here isn't the "Jewish" part, so I'd kindly thank the advocates to avoid the accusations of anti-Semitism that typically bedevil almost any discussion of a Jewish-related category — rather, it's the smoosh of "composers and songwriters" that's the issue. There is not, in fact, a single other category in all of Wikipedia that combines the two occupations into an umbrella category of this type, except for two geographical subcats of this — in all other cases, composers and songwriters are two separate category trees which are not lashed together into a "composers and songwriters" parent, and in fact this one already has subcats for both Category:Jewish composers and Category:Jewish songwriters too. Those two subcategories should certainly be retained, but this one is not needed as a parent for them. Delete, and recat all entries in the appropriate composers or songwriters subcats instead of this. Bearcat (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2014 (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:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows[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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 16:46, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to parent or more specific sub-cats. There was no consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 19#Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows for renaming to "unsupported". Following that close, an editor emptied the category out of process,[1] but the result is not a bad one. This nomination seeks to ratify that action and provide an audit trail for the deleted category. – Fayenatic London 18:28, 23 June 2014 (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:Global sports[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) 00:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear criteria for inclusion. NickSt (talk) 18:09, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Almost all sports have at least some form of "global" following — so, indeed, it would take an arbitrary cutoff (and thus an WP:OC#ARBITRARY violation) to determine whether any given sport was "global" enough to belong in this category or not. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - I have added inclusion criteria and disclaimer: This is a top level category for sports events that have become globalized on a commercial basis, such as world championships and Olympic games.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Meclee (talk • contribs)

The definition given above, "Sports events that have become globalized on a commercial basis, such as world championships and Olympic games." Meclee (talk) 00:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We must use reliable sources for such description, otherwise it will be original research. NickSt (talk) 09:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Request I added this category to the very broad Category:Sports tree. I think it would be helpful if you placed this in a more specific sub-cat in that tree so we could better understand how this fits. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The inclusion criteria is ambiguous and subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:24, 30 June 2014 (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:Olympic recognised sports[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. – Fayenatic London 23:11, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear criteria for inclusion. NickSt (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just for a bit of added clarification, since the nominator's rationale has some potential to be misunderstood: while the category name sounds perfectly logical and clear, we already have a category for Category:Olympic sports, of which this is a subcategory — and what's lacking is a clear and explicit criterion to differentiate the two things. Ergo, delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you've added Offshore powerboat racing (to Category:Former Summer Olympic sports as well). I'd have to question this - is it useful? Has there been any olympic involvement with powerboating, such that the olympics are now of any relevance to powerboaters? It's also uncited. As is well known, the IOC express disinterest in sports with engines. Yet at olympic sports there's a list (with a broken cite) that some such sports "have their governing bodies recognized by the IOC, though not contested in the Olympic Games". Now if that's a thing, then Category:Olympic recognised sports has some justification. I'm not seeing it though – there's not enough citation and I'm not convinced that such a grouping is at all notable. "We know it exists but it's nothing to do with us" is not a strong statement of relevance, especially not to the sport itself (the list might survive at olympic sports). It's like asking the Royal Horticultural Society for their views on welding, provided that no-one is going to be doing any welding at the Chelsea flower show. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It was Water motorsports at the 1908 Summer Olympics. In the lede, we can see link to Motorboat racing, which is redirect to Offshore powerboat racing. Is it equal things or not? Also, Powerboating is listed among Olympic sports#Recognized international federations. Is it about Powerboating, or about Offshore powerboat racing? NickSt (talk) 15:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional info. ARISF is Association of IOC Recognised International Sports Federations (Official site). Here is list of recognized sports: [2] NickSt (talk) 15:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify. Sports etc (e.g. tug of war, chess) should not be categorized under the Olympics. DexDor (talk) 05:35, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too passing of a phenomenon to be worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:17, 12 July 2014 (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:Stick fighting[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:Stick-fighting, since article is at Stick-fighting. If the article name's format ever changes in the future, the category could follow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Basic English grammar: Hyphenate compound noun phrases. If I were engaged in "stick fighting", I'd be fighting against sticks, not using sticks to fight with. Cleanup of stick-fighting to use the consistent spelling was a simple matter. An argument can be made for Category:Stickfighting, actually, since most well-established sporting-related compounds are eventually de-hyphenated and fully compounded. External sources vary, and some do use "stickfighting", others "stick-fighting". The article presently at Nguni stick-fighting used "stickfighting" as well as "Stick Fighting" and various other constructions, some acceptable some not. Some sources at Bataireacht hyphenate. Regardless, it needs to be compounded one way or the other. See also: World Extreme Cagefighting (note it's not "Cage Fighting"), shin-kicking (not "shin kicking"), kickboxing (not "kick boxing"), American football & Category:American football (not "foot ball"). Some spaced-apart sport and game names should be spaced, because they are not compound noun phrases, but simple nouns with modifiers, usually descriptive classifications by goals/rules, sanctioning body, motorized or not, with animal or not, type of venue/surface, combination of two sports, etc.: combat sports (Category:Combat sports), submission wrestling, Olympic fencing, alpine skiing, motorcycle racing, equestrian vaulting, speed golf, etc. Even in some of those cases, compounding is frequent anyway: see World Chessboxing Association vs. World Chess Boxing Organisation, and shootfighting vs. shoot boxing. Contrast cricket-spitting (the human spitting of crickets) and cockroach racing (cockroaches racing each other). A few spaced-apart cases can be found in our articles and categories that are closer to "stick fighting" in linguistic structure, but they're overwhelmingly outnumbered by the compounded ones (hyphenated or fully compounded), and represent WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS stuff that needs to be cleaned up in turn. I recently moved ferret-legging, dwarf-tossing, cricket-spitting, keg-tossing, and some others to hyphenated names for the same reason as this CfR (and moved wood chopping to woodchopping as most sources seemed to fully compound it as the name of a sport.) PS: Note that constructions of the form hammer throw, caber toss and shot put are usually not hyphenated, vs., e.g., "hammer-throwing", though they are sometimes fully compounded, e.g. "woodchop" as attested as an alternate name at woodchopping.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:47, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Reliable sources are inconsistent, even on the same page, so we might as well go with the hyphenation rules favored by major style guides, absent clear evidence that the term is usually completely compounded. For example see, this martial arts encyclopedia entry, which reads: "Mani Stick Fighting: This little-known stick-fighting martial art...". Note however that stub at mani stick fighting is actually an unintentional content fork from juego de maní; I'm working on merging them to the latter (the only source for "mani stick-fighting" or "mani stick fighting" is the aforementioned source with inconsistent spelling).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge completed.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:11, 23 June 2014 (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/2014_June_23&oldid=1074813314"