< June 18 June 20 >

June 19

Category:Johnny Bench Award winners

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:23, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:Overcategorization. They won the award, but that's not their defining characteristic. The list and navbox are sufficient to identify them as Johnny Bench Award winners. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "OCAT by AWARD"? What does this mean? Sorry, I don't know the secret handshake. Doprendek (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
.
In the Massachusetts criminal code there's a section called "Crimes Against Chastity" (at least, it was there 20 years ago) that went back to colonial times. It was on the books but was never prosecuted because it didn't correspond to the way people actually acted and, in fact, pushing for its prosecution would have opened up its own set of problems. Well, I feel like I committed the Wikipedia equivalent of a Crime Against Chastity except, y'know, a Crime Against Chastity sounds a lot more fun than Overcategorization.
.
I admit, until I got this notice of deletion, I wasn't even aware of WP:Overcategorization. When I first moved into adding and then creating categories, I followed what it looks like other people are doing--and I don't mean just a few people, I mean an easy majority.
.
"not their defining characteristic": you got me there, it's hard to say that winning the Johnny Bench Award is a definitive moment of Buster Posey's career--as opposed to definitive stuff like, say, Category:Fresno Grizzlies players, or Category:Salem-Keizer Volcanoes players. Or for that matter Category:Golden Spikes Award winners, an amateur award with its own navbox that I can't help thinking is kinda close to the category I created. (But not Category:National League Most Valuable Player Award winners: I had to put that one in, hope that's OK.)
.
But then there's Jeremy Brown. Maybe the Johnny Bench Award *is* defining for him, unless it's that "Moneyball" thing that gets precedence. But the JB Award is only in par 2... hmmm.. good enough?... well, OK, let's leave the category for the JB Award in for Brown, but not for Posey... but then how about someone who wonders why Posey isn't in that category? why not just include everybody? oh wait they must not have read WP:Overcategorization... better monitor it so that we can remove JB Award if it's put in for Posey... but not for Brown, because it's OK there...
.
Or OK, just drop the Johnny Bench Award category. And of course while one is at it, better drop Category:All-American college baseball players‎ (145 P) and Category: College World Series Most Outstanding Player Award winners‎ (64P) per the same basic logic... And please in your spare time go through the tens of thousands of other Wikipedia categories that will fail of the same criteria.
.
But really, I had better stop focusing on this one set of categories surrounding the one I created, in case it seems like I am special pleading, and I'm not... what I am arguing is that the criterion given here is not only unenforceable, *and that's a good thing, too*, it shouldn't be enforced, because it (I would think obviously) goes against the practice of most (damn near all?) creators of categories, whose criteria are something more like, "Does a category that uniquely describes trait x exist?" and, "Is it interesting, or just something in the article I hadn't thought of before and maybe someone else would want to see some previously unconsidered connections and maybe add to them in the Wikipedia way"? And I would also argue that this actual practice is in fact a better, more sensible, way of doing things than the strictures of "WP:Overgeneralization."
.
Oh, and is it worth pointing out that WP:Overgeneralization does not describe overgeneralization, or even generalization, at all? What it describes is a kind of overspecificity, although only after creating a difficult-to-pin-down ideal ("definability"). And I think there are plenty of people on Wikipedia who sense that, too, because even though "Overgeneralization" is put at the top of categorization Wikisins, it is relatively rarely invoked as a category deletion criterion (I checked, admittedly quickly), and when it is, it is generally used to delete excessively, dare I say ridiculously, fine-grained *overspecificity* (just fine, IMHO), or as a handy rhetorical bludgeon, because it can be brought out to attack just about any category if one looks at the category the "right" way (bad, again IMHO, although I would hope in some others' HO as well). If you really want to delete a truly overgeneral category, better go after Category:Living People. (Yes, I'm kidding.) BTW, it seems that proper subcategorization, not deletion, is the answer to most instances of this presumed Wikisin.
.
As for that navbox business... here I naively thought that the existence of a navbox, which I thought by its essence would indicate (I'll use that word here) *definability*, is instead, something else... something that has to do with (to me) previously unknown rules regarding what are correct and incorrect ways to allow a user to navigate to a particular piece of information. And I hope you don't intend to kick this can of worms further down the road, I'll be forced to answer again, since it goes to some basic design issues that go to any interface for a computer-designed information store, not just Wikipedia. Doprendek (talk) 19:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "computer-designed": make that "computer-based" Doprendek (talk) 20:48, 21 June 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:Fandom webcomics

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ambiguous title: the category description says just this: "Webcomics about fandom". Must distinguish from webcomics created as fan fiction. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:00, 19 June 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:311 members

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per established convention of Category:Musicians by band: "Categories should not be created when only one member has an article." --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:36, 19 June 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:South Indian films

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 per G4; appears to be an attempt to do an end-run around the previous discussion. As I set out in the close there, there might be a justification for a Category:Dravidian-language films, but there is consensus against using "South Indian" as the descriptor. It is best to avoid accusing other editors of "Eurocentrism" or any other type of systemic bias. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category "Indian film" already exists. The films have been categorized by respective languages too. Since South India is neither a country not a language, this category is seemingly redundant. Almost the same as South Indian-language films. Johannes003 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
People from South India are ethnically and culturally completely different. They are Dravidians. There is no need to artificially box them together with other Indian cultures. The term "Indian film" is not used in Indian media for the same reason, because films are defined by culture and language, not by nationality, in India. Like there is no language called "Indian", there is no film called "Indian". It's a very inaccurate and useless western perception based on artificial country borders. -- Dravidian  Hero  09:19, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this category is clearly defined in the category description: This category lists all films produced originally in more than one Dravidian language. (No dubbed films) -- Dravidian  Hero  09:23, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted, because 95% of participants didn't even remotely understand the substance of the subject. It's because of pure Eurocentrism and Indian fantasy citizens. -- Dravidian  Hero  13:03, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understood very well the intention. I !voted to keep, but to rename, for a slightly different categorization, which would group all south-indian-language films together in a container category. But whatever, this particular category was deleted by consensus, and you've now re-created it, so it should be speedy-deleted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:14, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"slightly different categorization" doesn't look like you were one of the 5 percenters. Eurocentricm has no limits.-- Dravidian  Hero  14:24, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cut out the personal attacks DravidianHero. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:00, 20 June 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:People from Belarus

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. Consensus was to merge. There was some discussion that this should be a reverse merge. But the majority were for the merge in the direction proposed. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:People from Belarus seems to be a later duplication of Category:Belarusian people and I can't see a reason why the content shouldn't be merged. Sionk (talk) 10:18, 19 June 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:Burma subdivision football templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The catgory is not about football, juist about subdivisions. Cycn (talk) 09:24, 19 June 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:1901 establishments in Malaya

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 per nom. If category parents are needed in the Malaya tree they can be added after the rename. I will note the other discussions, but the comments here indicate a consensus. This close should be reviewed when and if we develop a policy on how to handle all of these. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell all articles currently in this category were established in British Malaya. No articles from those areas under the control of Siam have been added to the 1901 and 1903 categories yet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 23 June 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.

1913 establishments in Poland

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. To match the 1903 close that I just did. There are many valid points raised in these discussions. I'm not sure how these will wind up, but clearly there are some issues with keeping or outright deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The application of the current boundaries will not work. I do not think anyone would agree to putting Technische Hochschule Breslau in Category:1910 establishments in Poland, but that would be what we would get if people applied the current boundary plan. That was without question a German institution, and to stick the appellation "Poland" on it is an unacceptable POV-pushing. It would be bad enough if it was in the part of Silesia where a very controversial and heavily disputed pleblesite was carried out after World War I, but Breslau is in the part of Silesia that was in Germany at all times from 1871 until 1945, and so to try to call it in any way "Poland" is just plain unworkable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it can work. It has worked for awhile now with many of the cats in Category:Establishments in Poland by year and Category:Years in Poland. It's not POV to have a category that recognises and categorises by current boundaries, because boundaries are not POV. If users want to get shirty about a specific article, we can cross that bridge if and when it arises, but I doubt there would be many problems if the scope of the categories was made clear by use of written definitions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:54, 19 June 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:1915 establishments in Poland

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. To match the 1903 close that I just did. There are many valid points raised in these discussions. I'm not sure how these will wind up, but clearly there are some issues with keeping or outright deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
you are ignoring the fact that it is not at all clear that these things were in some cases established in Poland. It is only clear that they were established in Austria-Hungary and made up of ethnic Poles. In the case of Austria-Hungary it is among other things likely some of these things were formed in what is now Ukraine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, I am not really "ignoring" that—but frankly it's irrelevant to my argument—and to yours for that matter, since it doesn't justify deletion. It justifies re-categorization or upmerge categorization of an article. If you can't establish that something was established within the present-day borders of Poland, then that's a completely different issue of why the article is in the category in the first place. However, you might consider if maybe you are not understanding my point. I'm talking about a place on the surface of the earth—let's say it's Warsaw, just for this example. Something was established in Warsaw in 1914. The place on the surface of the earth—Warsaw—may not have been "in Poland" in 1914, but it sure as heck is "in Poland" right now. So someone is researching about things that were established in this particular place on the surface of the earth—Warsaw—in 1914. It would be helpful if there was a category that contained things that were established within the current boundaries of Poland in 1914. That's what we have. Please don't propose deleting the system if the problem is—after many of these types of discussions—that you still don't even understand why users might argue that it's helpful to have. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no workable, non-POV definition of Poland. You would apply the appellation of Poland to things established by Germans, within Germany, in totally German areas. That is unworkable POV-pushing. You are totally ignoring how complex and unworkable the Poland appellation is. You are ignoring that we did delete the equally unworkable Ukrainian category, we merged the unworkable Category:1865 establishments in Pakistan, and we renamed the unworkable pre-1948 Israel categories. These attempts to run roughshod over the reality that many places now designated "Poland" were inhabited by overwhelmingly German populations, and that many places in 1915 that had Polish majority populations are not within Poland, are ignoring the clear precedents to shy away from totally unworkable categories. Another relevant discussion is Category:1910 establishments in Slovenia, where we scrapped that category even if we came up with a somewhat similar category, but it does not include the same area. I was originally going to propose merging to Congress Poland, but then I realized that despite the claims in one of the Category:1915 establishments in Poland articles to the effect that the thing was established in the Kingdom of Poland redirecting to the article on Congress Poland, our article on Congress Poland says it no longer existed after 1867, so it was not workable to propose merging there. To superimpose post-World War II boundaries on pre-World War I eastern Europe is just an unworkable scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"There is no workable, non-POV definition of Poland." Sure there is—the current boundaries. All of Poland's neighbours have signed treaties acknowledging the validity of the current boundaries. There is nothing POV about them—they are a well-recognised fact. That's why it's helpful to use it as a reference, even when dealing with historical times when the borders were different. If you could recognise—even a basic acknowledgment of the theoretical possibility would be welcome—that there could potentially be two separate and legitimate schemes or approaches to this, that would be great. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:03, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is an unworkable POV pushing statement to call things created by groups of Germans in German areas for German interests "establishments in Poland". They were Germans, operating in Germany, establishing in Germany, there is nothing Polish about what they did. In the case of the Technische Hochschule Breslau it was disestablished at the time the area became part of Poland. It is unworkable to categorize it with Poland at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No acknowledgment of the possibility that there is another approach? It makes me sad that you can't seem to bring yourself to do it. :( Anyway, The scheme doesn't make the thing "Polish"—it merely recognises that it was established in a place that is currently in Poland. You keep saying that is "unworkable", but that's apparently a POV because I find it very workable and understandable from my POV. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one who is ignoring that these categories say the establishment was in a specific country in a specific year. Technische Hochschule Breslau was in no way Polish, and should never be included in a Poland category. Next you will want to include Arab Christian organizations established in what is now Israel in 1907 in establishments in Israel in 1907 categories. These are just unworkable implications of national identity to things that had no connection with that nation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The definition and the name of the category do not say that. The definition says, "Organizations, places or other things founded or established in Poland in the year XXXX". You are adding interpretation to what it says, and there is more than one way to interpret the name and the definition. In fact, in the definition, "Poland" links to the article about the current state of Poland, suggesting that it could well be referring to the current boundaries. Can you acknowledge that this too is a valid (or at least possible) interpretation? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:26, 19 June 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:Appalachian Trail Hall of Fame

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify. Deletion would lose information, so the contents have been listified in Appalachian Trail Museum and the category can be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems to be categorizing people who have been inducted into this hall of fame, which doesn't have its own article separate from Appalachian Trail Museum. We seem to routinely listify and delete most hall of fame inductee categories per WP:OC#AWARD, so I'm proposing that. The list could be added to Appalachian Trail Museum. But if kept, rename to Category:Appalachian Trail Hall of Fame inductees to accurately reflect the purpose of the category. (By the way, how can we nominate Mark Sanford for induction?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 19 June 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.
More