Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 3 December 5 >

December 4[edit]

Category:COVID Recovery Group members[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic for any of these members. They are defined as Conservative politicians and this COVID Recovery Group membership is just a minor and probably temporary part of their political career. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This group may (currently) be important, but, the MPs are already categorized by party and categorizing MPs for which groups they are in could cause a lot of category clutter - e.g Graham Brady's article mentions groups concerned with Advertising, Egypt, Fluoridation, Thailand, Cannabis and Children .... DexDor (talk) 15:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete membership in this group is not long term defining. We do not need to categorize people by every group they belong to that we have an article on. Down that path lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per Le Deluge; --Just N. (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2020 (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:People from Ioannina (municipality)[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 (taking into account the discussion below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content, apart from People from Ioannina‎ is one person from Pamvotida‎, now part of the municipality Ioannina. Distinguishing between the city and the municipality seems pointless and misleading. Rathfelder (talk) 20:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Same rationale as before. There is a distinction between municipalities and municipal units throughout the whole of Greece. Another reason not mentioned before is that in most of the cities' thousand year histories, the nearby settlements have only been partly assimilated for a short time (with the current municipalities, which in Greece are distinct from cities and act in some ways like provinces do in other states, being formed in 2011). --Antondimak (talk) 20:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow the outcome of the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine With outcome of the Katerini (municipality) discussion below. Whether I agree with that outcome or not, we should apply the same solution to both.-RevelationDirect (talk) 13:02, 5 December 2020 (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:Prehistoric animals of China[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 6#Category:Prehistoric animals of China

Category:People from Katerini (municipality)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content apart from Category:People from Katerini is one person from Pierioi‎, which seems to be a neighbouring village. Rathfelder (talk) 19:38, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. There is a structure of categories for people from Greece by administrative division. Katerini as a municipal unit and as a municipality belong to different types administrative divisions. Plus there are new articles added to the structure all the time. --Antondimak (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the structure of categories for people from Greece by administrative division is excessively ambitious. The structure was only established in 2011 - long after most of the people concerned were dead, and it creates huge numbers of categories for small settlements, none of which have more than a couple of articles. Rathfelder (talk) 22:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this is making it needlessly complicated. Below the level of administrative region it is sufficient to categorize by cities / towns. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge We don't have a main article Katerini (municipality) to provide inclusion criteria and the article that I found that seems to draw a municipality distinction is Prosilio, Pieria which has a link to "Katerini municipality" which just points to Katerini. That's a week basis for splitting this category. -RevelationDirect (talk) 13:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging like Rathfelder| proposed. -- Just N. (talk) 15:21, 11 December 2020 (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:Formerly unidentified people[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. MER-C 19:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. What a wonderful category! Do you want to take out Category:Formerly unidentified decedents and Category:Formerly unidentified murder victims as well? Presumeably very many murder victims are initially unidentified, at least until someone identifies them. Rathfelder (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not terribly useful once identity is established. Being unidentified ceases to be WP:DEFINING once the deceased's identity is established. The history of the subject's identity being a mystery is of course always mentioned in the article and (hopefully) given its due weight. It'd be like categorizing movies as "formerly upcoming" just because there was once a time when they weren't out yet. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:46, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:NONDEF; likely nearly every criminal who makes good their escape from the scene of the crime would fit into this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once they're identified, they're former status is super trivial. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another case of non-defining. We do not need to categorize in this way. Down this way is madness and category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF; --Just N. (talk) 15:23, 11 December 2020 (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.

Michigan ballot proposals[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose These are part of a larger categorizing scheme for ballot measures. Renaming from "ballot proposal" to "ballot measure" might be reasonable (for consistency) but merging them would not. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 04:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're not what? The scheme classifies them by state and by year. This categorization is useful for reading and maintenance. The current coverage of ballot measures on Wikipedia is poor, and spotty, and I've been working to address this by creating new articles and consistently naming and categorizing them - deleting useful categories would make that effort significantly harder and more time consuming. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 09:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not part of a large categorizing scheme, just to avoid misunderstandings. On a further note, the nomination is not about deleting, but about merging. The articles will still be in the tree. So I cannot imagine how it hinders writing new articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • How are they not part of a scheme? I documented what the scheme is. Every other state is split this way at Category:2020 ballot measures and Category:Ballot measures by state. Keep in mind that these (in general, not for the Michigan ones, because again, I needed to get those moved) are part of their respective "$year $state elections" category - so you'd really need to merge into three categories if you applied this consistently. I'd love if intersection categories were a thing - but they aren't - and this is a very useful categorization for editors and readers even if some of the individual categories are small. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 21:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not part of a large scheme. Fifteen states do not have any article at all (i.e. do not have a category at all), a substantial number of states have only one subcategory with one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different conversation, but I would support upmerging all of those. SportingFlyer T·C 12:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all states even have ballot measures, and my efforts to actually standardize this categorization are relatively recent. I just don't see the benefit to upmerging these categories here - or what harm they're doing in their current state. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are meant to navigate easily to similar articles. This scheme makes the navigation process much more cumbersome. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, I haven't looked at other states, but all of the Michigan articles start with the year anyways, so they will be "naturally" sorted by year in the Michigan container category. WP:SMALLCAT deals with overcategorisation, and I think that's an issue here - categories are meant to allow the user to find similar topics, and while small categories are fine in some circumstances, these categories will never have more than 2-3 topics, and the container category will be able to hold all of them easily. Elliot321, I do understand/appreciate the attempt to standardise further than the state, but I think in this instance we're better off keeping everything in one master category, and I'm pretty firm in that belief. (California might be the exception to the rule, though, but that's not what we're discussing.) SportingFlyer T·C 19:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I was just somewhat annoyed with the inconsistent categorization that previously occurred with referendums - was quite a waste of time, imo. But I can see that I'm in the minority here. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 02:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't support removing these completely as Elliot321 noted, but the upmerge is exceptionally appropriate. SportingFlyer T·C 20:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging per nom; --Just N. (talk) 15:25, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in this case Michigan has an advantage over some other states, as the ballot measures are already named <year>-<number>, so this extra layer of categorization doesn't really improve navigation.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some state's numbers don't start at 1 each year (such as California). For Michigan, we don't need this extra layer of categorization.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:39, 12 December 2020 (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:Mr Nigeria[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) 02:20, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category that only exists to hold Category:Mr Nigeria winners‎ Le Deluge (talk) 19:17, 4 December 2020 (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.

People by populated place in Austria[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one or two articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge For Now Presumably even small hamlets have more than five people but most are likely not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. No objection to recreating any that exceed my expectations and get to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 13:29, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In some cases we have articles which have not been categorized by place of origin, as opposed to lacking the articles in the first place. Dimadick (talk) 22:38, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; --Just N. (talk) 15:28, 11 December 2020 (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:Indinan Town Templates[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. MER-C 19:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created, mis-spelled, had only the newly-created, up-for-deletion page Template:Lowell, Indiana in it before I removed it from the category. No prejudice against renaming to "Indiana Municipal Government templates" or something similar IF it is going to actually be populated by existing relevant templates. Otherwise, delete. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misspelled title, empty Cat.Shearonink (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. quickly, alike Shearonink; -- Just N. (talk) 15:31, 11 December 2020 (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:China Shipping Group[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:COSCO. That category has been nominated for renaming here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: China Shipping Group no longer exists because it merged with COSCO in 2016. All the companies under China Shipping Group are now renamed and under COSCO Group. CartleR255 (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The bold merge of the article itself reverted. Also expanded to show WP:NCORP. Matthew hk (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2 of the 4 article titles here begin with "COSCO..." and the recreated main article describes itself as an "intermediate holding company" of COSCO.- RevelationDirect (talk) 19:47, 13 December 2020 (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:Imperial Austrian emigrants[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. MER-C 15:06, 13 December 2020 (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:Six western palaces[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:Forbidden City. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Textbook example of a WP:SMALLCAT - and no matching Six Western Palaces article Le Deluge (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2020 (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.

Footballers who switched code[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 17 § Category:Rugby league players that played in the NFL, which resulted in deletion, on the grounds of trivial intersection by a non-defining characteristic. Other similar categories with the same characteristics probably need to be deleted as well. Note that I left out Category:Dual players and Category:Dual camogie–football players because main article Dual player seems to suggest that this notion is defining within the context of Gaelic sports. @Namiba, SportingFlyer, Good Olfactory, Carlossuarez46, RevelationDirect, and Zeke, the Mad Horrorist: pinging contributors to previous discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 11:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other relevant older CfDs: 1 (deleted), 2 (deleted), 3 (renamed, eligibility not challenged), 4 (deleted, in practice superseded by a list), 5 (upmerged). @Lugnuts, Johnpacklambert, Qetuth, Peterkingiron, Timrollpickering, Philosopher, Shawn à Montréal, Resolute, Oculi, PKT, Alansohn, Goodtimber, Esprit15d, and Mike Selinker: pinging active contributors to these discussions. Place Clichy (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:10, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This category existed in the form of Category:Sportspeople of multiple sports, which was deleted after a community discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bonkers. I would hope if it were recreated and had a clearly defined remit, it would not end in the same result. Number 57 12:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do think players are defined by playing multiple sports professionally, and it's a list I would expect to be on the encyclopaedia somewhere. I was only neutral in the last one because there were some players who were college footballers who played in the NRL and I didn't think it defined those players in the same way it did professional athletes. I probably should have been a keep, as that does define a professional. It absolutely defines Ben Graham (football player), for instance... SportingFlyer T·C 11:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've just gone through most of the Aussie rules players who played in the NFL and all of them are clearly defined by that category, apart from one which was miscategorised. If only rugby players are kept, I don't support deleting the Aussie rules category. SportingFlyer T·C 01:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Switching code is a defining characteristic, and is mentioned by media almost every time that the players are mentioned. --SuperJew (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Oranjelo100 (talk) 12:52, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The characteristic of an athlete switching "codes" is a strong defining characteristic. Whenever I read articles about these athletes, the authors can't help but mention that the athlete had switched from one to the other in describing the individual. Alansohn (talk) 13:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at least in some form. I think that it's perhaps notable that most of those in favour of Keep are from Commonwealth countries and most-but-not-all of those opposed (this time and in the past) are from the US. I think that in itself points to a geographical issue in how these things are perceived, and perhaps people could bear in mind that their personal experience might not be a global perspective. Certainly in rugby, code switching has historically been A Really Big Deal generating acres of newsprint, and someone like Jason Robinson will always be known as a "former league player and World Cup winner" in that order (eg as the BBC does here - the very epitome of WP:DEFINING) - in fact his Wiki article mentions his dual-code-ness in the first sentence, but there's no mention anywhere in the lede that he was in the only England team to win the union World Cup. So I think that's pretty clear evidence that dual-codeness is WP:DEFINING in one major English-speaking country - and I suspect the same would be true in Oz/NZ (even if winning World Cups is a bit less rare there...). So then I guess the question is whether rugby is unique in finding dual code WP:DEFINING - and the article for cricketer Denis Compton mentions his football career in the second line. Cricket-football is definitely WP:DEFINING for him. So then it's just a case of working out where to draw the line, because I can imagine there's lots of trivial examples - and I'd suggest playing two codes professionally is rare enough to be a good line to draw (as well as meaning that each career is worthy of a Wiki article in its own right), but could live with eg the requirement that one of the careers be at international level. Le Deluge (talk) 14:51, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Le Deluge: it seems from the discussion that some pairs of sports would be defining while some others would not necessarily be. Among the arguments here, I feel the contradiction that in some cases a combination would be notable because it is rare (and hence a personal achievement), and in other cases because it is frequent (as for sports which would share a stronger link of some kind such as Gaelic football and hurley, or rugby union and rugby league). Where I leave the case of skier Luc Alphand who later switched to auto racing (and even sailing) with quite some success in the first too sports is celebrated as an exceptional accomplishments, but I guess that Category:Alpine skiers turned auto racers would not be a very interesting category. If we keep all these, do we need to overturn the recent deletion of Category:Rugby league players that played in the NFL? Place Clichy (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Place Clichy: I think you're trying to maybe complicate things a little more than they need to be, I think most of this kind of stuff can be mostly covered by existing policies. If we had a general Category:People notable for playing multiple sports, then that could act as a parent that could accommodate the weird pairings like Alphand whilst diffusing the common pairings down into specific categories. Also that name emphasises the WP:NOTABILITY aspect - and as I say, I'm happy with either "normal Wiki WP:NOTABILITY in each sport" or a requirement that one sport should be an international level. The reason why rugby union/league is such A Big Deal dates from when the former was amateur and the latter was professional and all the social baggage that came with that, so there was huge amounts of WP:NOTABLE coverage of such conversions in the decade or so after union went professional in 1995. Now it is a bit less remarkable, but there's still a bit of a hangover from that earlier time. I have no strong views about things like the NFL conversions, so how about we just see what WP:Reliable sources say? A quick search turns up articles on league to NFL (Jarryd Hayne and union to NFL (Alex Gray) - that second article is clearly about the move, and I doubt the BBC would normally devote an article to an Australian changing rugby clubs, the focus is clearly on the code switch. So the BBC seems to think these switches are notable as a thing in their own right, and as a Brit that feels representative of general UK thinking. I can't comment on other countries, but looking at this thread, it seems Gaelic games are probably going to be an exception to wherever we end up, Australia/NZ are probably similar to the UK, US editors seem less keen - perhaps the "one sport at international level" might be a way round that. But given the local variation, it might be helpful to canvas some opinion from other major en.wiki countries like Canada, South Africa and India? Le Deluge (talk) 12:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Le Deluge: you are correct about rugby league and rugby union having probably seen a huge number of players switching, and not just at the time of the switch to professionalism. For the decades when union was purely amateur, it is possible that many good players from lower class backgrounds or poorer regions would have had to switch to league in order to make a living, which is a reason often given for the popularity of rugby league in the North of England. That's the case when two sports are so related (as are also probably gaelic sports) that very many players would have kicked a ball in both versions, especially if we allow amateur play for consideration. In such a case, is this switch suitable for a category (i.e. a defining characteristic for the player)? I would be satisfied with keeping this information in list format, which call allow all nuances, such as level reached in each sport, sources etc.
    At the opposite range of the spectrum (the rare cases), this BBC article for instance consistently presents Luc Alphand as the skiing champion who just took victory in the Dakar Rally, but despite the accomplishment I do not think that this gives us rationale for placing him in a ski champion turned auto racer category. Place Clichy (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To give a little more context to my remark from last time, the category OP is referring to was basically of the form of "Player of X sport who played in a league for Y sport", without indicating whether the sport the player previously played were also at the professional level. I still find this to be a trivial intersection of topics, however, because switching code or playing in a league for a different sport than before is still implied via the other categories on the player's article (not to mention, obviously, biographical information in the article itself). That's about all we need. Besides, there is other data that these overlapping categories cannot represent, e.g. where each player hails from (and thus which "X nationality [sport] players" category they fall under). Last time I also said to be valid these categories would need to be capable of utterly replacing others; as they are, they are not able to do that and mostly cause a creep towards WP:OVERCAT. The most I would say is listify, otherwise delete. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all a nonsense nomination. Just an editor with nothing better to do. Playing two sports at a senior level is a major achievement and therefore notable. Maybe delete some categories that are not well populated. Djln Djln (talk) 16:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, ease up. Second, senior level isn't really implied in the category names as written except with regard to name-dropping the NFL. And what would qualify as "senior level" anyway? Major league? Would minor league but still professional do? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 16:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wide your neck in mate, I was asked for an opinion and I gave it. I am entitled to leave an opinion. If you don't like it, tough. There are thousands of Wikipedia articles that need improving yet some editors waste time with this nonsense. These categories are perfectly legitimate and no amount of Wikispeak and Wikijargon is going to convince me otherwise. Djln Djln (talk) 13:51, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Just an editor with nothing better to do" is beyond what you've been asked to provide here. That's casting aspersions on an editor's motivation. Being involved with this does not preclude contributing to other things that truly need it on Wikipedia, whether this matters or not. Don't take any of this too seriously, and don't misread my posts; it wasn't your opinion on the matter at hand I took issue with, and I responded to that separately. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 17:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In an earlier discussion, we just deleted Category:Rugby league players that played in the NFL. What do you suggest to do with that? What logic would there be to delete this one and keep the rest? Place Clichy (talk) 17:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a far more comprehensive discussion than that one was in terms of participation - it's not necessarily binding precedent. As I noted that category had some issues since it was defining for some but not others, but I imagine we should be able to have a category like that. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know it is not a binding precedent, and you'll notice that I voted keep in the previous discussion. I'm just trying to find some sense in this. If some pairs of sports are more defining than others, which ones and according to which criteria would that be? In the extreme, seen the number of people here who find any of these categories as defining, should the deleted one be reinstated? Also, I do not quite understand why a list would not be a better way to cover these topics than a category, as List of English cricket and football players instead of deleted Category:England international footballers who also played Test cricket. Place Clichy (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're trying to make sense of something that isn't straightforward. The question really is - do we define the players based on their dual career? For Aussie rules/NFL players the answer is clearly yes. The problem with the rugby league cat is that some were not clearly defined by their move, but that had to do more with their overall notability than anything else. I think the geographic element of this is important too - the rugby category may have been deleted because playing both rugby league and NFL isn't really defining to Americans (who I don't think could tell you the difference between league and union if they know rugby at all) but it definitely would be for Australians. Also, lists and categories are not in conflict with each other and have advantages and disadvantages the other does not. SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Great number of high profile players who switch codes and play another code of rugby.Fleets (talk) 16:59, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per recent discussion as well as WP:NONDEF. Lists would be useful though.--User:Namiba 19:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Many players have moved from one type of sport to another without difficulty. Similarly we don't divvy up tennis players by grass vs. clay court players. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Dual-code rugby internationals, delete the rest. As List of dual-code rugby internationals shows, crossing between rugby league and rugby union is a Big Deal™ for those inside the sport. But there's nothing particularly transcendent about a soccer player becoming an NFL kicker; we have plenty of basketball players in the NFL, and baseball players too, and wrestlers and track stars and bobsledders and even a Hall of Famer who was a professional race car driver. I don't know enough about Gaelic football to weigh in on whether code switching is a major thing in that, so I'll say my delete vote on that could be persuaded away.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:58, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The number of articles in both Gaelic football categories prove that is switching code is a big deal. Similar numbers to rugby categories. Djln Djln (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how it can be defining to have played Gaelic football and any other ball sport. Also, as some have suggested that these categories should be for professional play only, that cannot work with Gaelic football which is entirely amateur. Note that Category:Dual players (of hurley and Gaelic football) is not included in this nomination, as main article Dual player seems to suggest that this specific notion is defining within the context of Gaelic sports. Place Clichy (talk) 19:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just more nonsense and nothing stated here justifies deleting these categories. The fact that "Gaelic football...is entirely amateur" is totally irrelevant and this statement just proves your ignorance of the topic. In Ireland, Gaelic football is extremely important and notable. It is probably the most popular sport on the island. Djln Djln (talk) 19:37, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have been asked to keep this discussion civil, please do so for the sake of the quality of the debate. Amateur status is relevant because several editors have argued in this very discussion that playing two sports professionally would be what is interesting here, as opposed e.g. kicking a ball in your own free time. Selected quotes: playing two sports professionally is a notable achievement, players are defined by playing multiple sports professionally, and it's a list I would expect to be on the encyclopaedia somewhere; [...] there were some players who were college footballers who played in the NRL and I didn't think it defined those players in the same way it did professional athletes, I'd suggest playing two codes professionally is rare enough to be a good line to draw. Nobody contests that Gaelic football is notable on its own. Place Clichy (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mike Selinker: What is the difference between List of dual-code rugby internationals (as being a rationale for a category 'keep') and Irish experiment (Australian rules football)? The first has numerous sections, e.g. Fiji, France, Germany, Italy, Tonga and the United States, that are uncited. It also states "From 1910 to 1995, dual-code internationals were infrequent". The other seems to be more fully sourced. It states "The Irish Experiment began in the mid-1980s". When dual-code rugby internationals, according to the list, did not often occur. --Gaois (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the answer is that chat is good for a list is not necessarily good for a category. Lists can have additional commentary and sectioning introducing nuances and explaining different situations, and also allow to place a source next to a list entry, things a category is not good for. Place Clichy (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Regarding Gaelic sports:
(i) on Kevin Moran (who is in the category), "[Alex] Ferguson was well educated on the GAA from the time that Kevin Moran was briefly double-jobbing with United and the Dubs".
He didn't even switch completely at first, he was doing the two.
(ii) on Tadhg Kennelly (also in the category), an Australian source anticipating his return: "The chances of Tadhg Kennelly rejoining the Sydney Swans have been boosted after Kennelly scored twice to help Kerry to beat Cork in Gaelic football's All-Ireland final. The rivals battled it out before 82,000 fans at Dublin's famous Croke Park on Sunday, watched on by Swans coach Paul Roos and a group of Kennelly's former Sydney teammates who travelled over to support him. The 0-16 1-09 win made Kennelly the first player to hold both an All Ireland medal and AFL Premiership medallion."
Kennelly subsequently returned to play for Sydney.
(iii) if last decade is too long ago, how about this week? Colin O'Riordan (also in the category) "O'Riordan, who was handed a two-year extension to his deal with the Swans in 2019, received official permission from the club to line out for the duration of the season."
He won a Munster Senior Football Championship (as covered by Australian media) and just played in an All-Ireland semi-final a couple of days ago.
(iv) Mark Keane also played in the same Munster final, after he "was the goalscoring hero as they dumped out Kerry at the semi-final stage on Sunday. The game marked the 20-year-old's first senior outing for Cork after Collingwood had given him the green light to link up with the squad when he returned home to Ireland after the 2020 AFL season had drawn to a close."
Why are all these professional soccer and Australian rules clubs and players bothering with these "amateur" competitions in another country if they are non-defining? And note that rugby union was entirely amateur as recently as 1995. And that the sports in question here are deliberately amateur, "Rule 11: That the GAA is a not-for-profit organisation; the revenues received are used exclusively for the development of its games and for the administration of its activities" (see page 5, as stated in the contents - or 14 out of the total of 97).

Gaois (talk) 06:16, 9 December 2020 (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:Basshunter unreleased songs[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. MER-C 19:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category of redirects all listed here with no further info elsewhere. If there were anything notable about the songs, I'd say upmerge to the parent categories, but there isn't. I see no reason for this category to exist. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:13, 4 December 2020 (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:2010 Amharic television series[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. MER-C 15:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I assume this was intended to be a television debuts category. Category:2010 television series debuts is subcategorized by country, not language. The category contains just one article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, kind of WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I strongly suspect that Amharic is only one of the languages of Ethiopia; if so, the language of the performance is highly relevant. As an Englishman, I would not want to watch a programme in Welsh, though I might watch one in English set in Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The only article in the category is defined as an Ethiopian television series, not an Amharic one. If Television in Ethiopia is accurate, the majority of television channels in Ethiopia are broadcasting in Amharic.Dimadick (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:42, 11 December 2020 (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:Amharic crime drama television series[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. MER-C 15:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Crime drama television series is divided by country, not by language. The category contains only one article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, kind of WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I strongly suspect that Amharic is only one of the languages of Ethiopia; if so, the language of the performance is highly relevant. As an Englishman, I would not want to watch a programme in Welsh, though I might watch one in English set in Wales. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To match the rest of the categories in this category tree. Dimadick (talk) 22:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2020 (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:Recipients of the National Order of Benin[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. MER-C 19:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visit Benin, or vice versa, the National Order of Benin is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Charles de Gaulle, Levi Eshkol and Al-Waleed bin Talal are not remotely defined by this award. (The only Beninese person in this category is President Thomas Boni Yayi, whose article doesn't even mention this award.) There wasn't a list so I created one here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2020 (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:Silver Crosses of the Order of Honour (Greece)[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 by nominator. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 19:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:SMALLCAT and likely WP:PERFCAT)
The only article in this Greek award category is Marcin Wilczek, a Polish diplomat whose article makes no mention of why he won the the award (or any connection to Greece for that matter). Presumably he received the award as a souvenir for a diplomatic visit which we've consistently found non-defining. I don't know if I can say I "listified" the recipients of the award since there is only 1 article but it is now linked right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The Order of Honour (Greece) is one of the highest-ranking decorations in Greece, in no way reserved to foreign diplomatic visits. This category is part of a larger set at Category:Recipients of the Order of Honour (Greece) with subcategories for the several ranks. At the very least this category should be upmerged to this parent and not deleted. Not that among others Charles Upham is present in the parent category, the article mentioning that "he was presented with the Order of Honour by the Government of Greece, in recognition of his service in the Battles of Greece and Crete." A look-up of the sources may confirm which precise rank he was awarded. The Silver Cross is the lowest rank, and it makes little sense to delete it without deleting all the other ranks. Place Clichy (talk) 10:22, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn Let me take broader look at the category tree as Place Clichy proposed. I don't accept that award classes are all or nothing but a broader nom may be in order. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:25, 4 December 2020 (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/2020_December_4&oldid=1078907400"