Category:Fictional gymnasts
[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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as nom. Also not opposed to deletion. - jc37 22:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose no need to be so highly specific; and there are many fictional gymnasts who aren't high schoolers, so unnecessarily restricts potential growth. Fictional HS gymnasts would necessarily need the current category as a parent. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:11, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Name one. Or better yet, since this is a category, name 5. Name five fictional characters which actually have as their occupation gymnast. Not martial artists or batman family type characters, but actual gymnasts. I look forward to that list of articles. - jc37 08:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- With a small category, such as this, there is no need to go for something more specific, when the general cateogry has as low a population as this. Furthermore, articles on a comic generally should not be in either category, even if they feature a gymnast. If that does not strictly offend against WP:OC#PERF, it is far too close to doing so to be allowable. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The category is already of modest size so making it more specific doesn't seem to be the correct way forward. Furthermore, the title Fictional high school gymnasts seems to indicate that they practice this sport in the context of their high school education (rather than simply the intersection of being a gymnast and being in high school). I've never seen a single episode of the show but the article List of Make It or Break It characters, seems to indicate that these gymnasts train at the Rocky Mountain Gymnastic Training Center which doesn't seem to be affiliated with a high school. Pichpich (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2015 (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.
- 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so this is to clean up the top icon template categories.
For one thing, long standing policy is that categories for userspace should have User prepended, and that categories of templates have templates appended.
Per other subcats of Category:Wikipedia templates by namespace, it appears that having templates in the name means we don't need to further disambiguate by pre-pending Wikipedia.
- Rename:
And Category:Protection templates should have the top icons subcatted, so:
- Split:
- jc37 21:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - as nom. - jc37 21:19, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for consistency and clarity. I seem to remember by own previous confusion on what "Top icons" were in a previous discussion but am failing to locate it. Addition of both "user" and "template" here are useful to navigation and comprehension. SFB 18:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_8#Category:Membership_top_icons (I keep a log of my CFD noms - 130 so far this year). DexDor (talk) 20:42, 26 April 2015 (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:United States military awards
[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 11:56, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The current contents (apart from one article, which should be removed from this category if the rename goes ahead), parent category and category text all indicate that this is a category for images - so the name of the category should match that. DexDor (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom, clearly a media category. Already exists in the file category tree -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The ambiguity is discussed above. The current name is very problematic. 20:07, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
- 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:Migrant boat incidents
[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. The last suggestion has merit and I will create Category:Migrant boat disasters as a sub-category, but keep the nominated category to hold articles such as Tampa affair. – Fayenatic London 07:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Migrant boat incidents to Category:Disasters involving illegal immigrants
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:OVERLAPCAT. Category:Disasters involving illegal immigrants consists almost entirely of boat incidents. Brandmeistertalk 15:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. In fact, there are much more types of disasters with illegal immigrants in wikipedia, only miscategorized. I will take a look around. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, what exactly is a migrant boat? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Answer, why don't you open any article in this category and read? Staszek Lem (talk) 22:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Because category names are suppose to be clear and properly worded. This one apparently is not if you have to read the articles to figure it out. 22:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
- A "migrant boat" is a boat with migrants. If the words "migrant" and "boat" are unclear to you, then you probably should not evaluating the subject before educating yourself. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: This is a specific type of tragedy, and not every single case involves "illegal" immigrants. Montanabw(talk) 04:14, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Not all migrants are "illegal" migrants. Refugees, for example, are migrants, but being a refugee is certainly not illegal. Neutralitytalk 05:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Human smuggling incidents or something similar. Address the issues with the current name is is clear. Once that is created, you could create something link Category:Human smuggling incidents on boats as a subcategory if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Migrant boats are not necessarily smuggling. As Montanabw pointed out, migrants are not necessarily illegal. Please explain what is the problem with the current title: how it is unclear, what problems it creates with categorizing, and how your suggestion will resolve them. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:21, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the article says it includes facilitating illegal entry. In any case this proposed target category at least has an article, albeit at a different name. If that is an issue you can rename to Category:People smuggling incidents. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- You did not understand what I wrote and did not answer my questions. No you cannot rename to this name either, for the same reason I explained. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Do the following: create a subcategory for "Maritime disasters involving illegal immigrants", move articles down into it and reparent the categories as necessary. However, I recommend waiting for Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_21#Category:Disasters_of_the_illegal_immigration_to_Italy to conclude first so that it can be taken into account in this CFD. DexDor (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read all of the above? not all migrants are illegal. Furthermore, while they are in the international waters, they cannot be legally described as illegal. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose just because migrants are involved in boating accidents does not mean they are travelling illegally. If we did not have as much presentist bias as we have, we would have articles on 19th-century boating incidents, like the Saluda explosion. Also, not all such incidents will even involve international migrants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:20, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't merge and slightly rename to Category:Migrant boat disasters, which is the more consistent form of article names in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 13 June 2015 (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:Cricket in the United Kingdom
[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: keep as part of an established tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. A pointless and utterly misleading category which is based on a concept that does not exist, as the category note itself emphasises. The idea is even more stupid as it puts Northern Ireland in the UK for cricket purposes when in fact Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are a united cricket team. If an attempt is being made to inform people about "British cricket", it is a WP:FICTION. We have English and Welsh cricket, we have Scottish cricket and we have Irish cricket. And the latter consists of one country not in the UK at all. We already have adequate categorisation for the relevant countries, including the combined Anglo-Welsh and combined Irish aspects. This category is a classic example of WP:OVER-CATEGORISATION and should be removed. What is the point of telling readers that there are UK cricket competitions when there are not; or UK grounds; or that "British cricket" has a history; or that there are UK cricket teams. In addition, the following sub-categories, all equally fictitious and pointless should be removed:
- Category:Cricket competitions in the United Kingdom
- Category:Cricket grounds in the United Kingdom
- Category:History of British cricket
- Category:Student cricket in the United Kingdom
- Category:Cricket teams in the United Kingdom
- Category:Women's cricket in the United Kingdom
The site should provide editorial accuracy. The existence of these categories suggests a view that England, Scotland and Wales must always be explained in UK terms and that is a completely misguided approach. Jack | talk page 08:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If it is integral, then where is it? Not there, so hardly "integral". Integral parts of Category:Sport in the United Kingdom are Category:Cricket in England, Category:Cricket in Scotland and Category:Cricket in Wales and these should all be added to that category (assuming it has some relevance to any other sports; certainly not football or rugby). You need to understand the structure and administration of international cricket. There is NO UK aspect to it whatsoever and you will not find any source anywhere that says there is, so it is a non-subject and therefore a WP:FICTION as described above. Jack | talk page 03:51, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - this is part of an overall category dealing with Category:Sport in the United Kingdom. It needs to be there so that users can navigate more easily. I accept your argument that UK cricket does not exist but categories are there for navigation not for 'precise' definitions. Expand the headnote so that users are aware precisly what the category covers. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:14, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Navigation using the correct categories is so much easier. Jack | talk page 14:49, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I sympathise with the nom's concerns, but it's an essential part of the category tree (though of course it should only be a container category). It's the same thing with Category:Football in the United Kingdom. IgnorantArmies (talk) 06:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge children - Cricket in UK is largely organised by England and Wales Cricket Board. It is largely played in England, but there is one Welsh county side, and Scotland competes in certain international competitions. The propulation of Welsh and Scottish categories is minimal. In the case of student cricket the UK, only the English univeristies of Oxford and Cambridge are mentioned. My solution is thus that we would eliminate the categories for the three home countries and Keep the UK categories. The alternative is to have one category covering what EWCB do or supervise and one for anything else in UK, but I do not think that is a useful approach. In one areas (e.g. horse-racing and gaelic sports), we have all-Ireland categories, because they are organised on an all-Ireland basis. We should be willing to do the same for GB (or UK) in appropriate cases. Occuli's reductio ad absurdam is not useful: English law does not apply in Scotland (or vice versa; and Rugby is organised separately in each country. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is incorrect. You have got your facts wrong. Cricket in Scotland is administered by Cricket Scotland which has nothing to do with the England and Wales Cricket Board. What has the population of the Welsh and Scottish categories to do with anything being discussed here? The UK cricket categories are a fiction, concerning something outside the real world. If you delete Category:Cricket in England, Category:Cricket in Scotland and Category:Cricket in Wales you create an entirely artificial structure. Your "upmerge" suggestion is frankly idiotic and pedantic. The previous view expressed by User:IgnorantArmies is sensible and would be an acceptable compromise if deletion might somehow disrupt the categorisation structure. If it is only a container category we could just ignore it. I might point out that Category:Football in the United Kingdom is not being used as a container category: it has several articles. Jack | talk page 06:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Oculi and re-add the country-level categories removed by the nominator. The nom does deserve credit for persistence, as he's been trying to delete these categories since 2006. - Eureka Lott 00:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Just because there is no cricket governing body for the United Kingdom, it doesn't mean academic study of cricket in the country is pointless. As long as material is grouped in the correct subcategories and high level material, like Cricket in the United Kingdom, is placed in these categories then this is actually really useful. Having no obvious way to get to cricket categories from the high level Category:Sport in the United Kingdom area would be a detriment, not an improvement. Cf. Category:Football in the United Kingdom. SFB 18:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per IgnorantArmies, it's part of a tree. Harrias talk 08:14, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as part of a tree Category:Sport in the United Kingdom (it is for cricket "in" not "of" the United Kingdom. Hugo999 (talk) 02:42, 2 May 2015 (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.
- 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: keep (no splitting) with support to renaming category to Category:Cowboys. There's no consensus to support a split but instead a number of views supporting renaming the category, specifically to the plural. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Split biography articles to American cattlemen, and the rest to Cowboy culture. The latter should be restructured to become the head category of the others with "Cowboy" in the name. – Fayenatic London 06:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support entire proposal by nominator as per Fayenatic rationale. Quis separabit? 19:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I've added a lot of entries in the category. When I do put the category in the article, I have to make sure that the guy worked first as a cowboy before becoming a cattleman/cattle baron himself. This is the reason why cattlemen such as John Horton Slaughter and Charles Goodnight are inducted (Both worked as a cowboy first), while business cattlemen who never worked in the range such as Jesse James and Otto Franc are excluded. I do agree that we should remove Category:Cowboy from being listed in the Category:Cattlemen and Category:American cattlemen, due to its obvious differences. 112.198.64.40 (talk) 02:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: For one thing, not all cowboys are "cattlemen", i.e. ranchers, and not all ranchers are cowboys. I have no objection to the existence of the other categories, but there are many, many cowboys who would not fit into these other categories, notably Charles Marion Russell(artist), Will James (writer), and so on. There is no harm in keeping "Cowboy" within the other categories for cross-linking, as some individuals clearly fit in both. Montanabw(talk) 04:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, that was what I was thinking above. I've looked into Category:Cowboy and there were cattlemen and cattle barons who were listed, but they have to have a history working as a cowboy to make sure that they did worked on a range. And I strongly oppose of relating this category to other categories specific to purist cattle businessmen. 112.198.64.40 (talk) 05:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- And there are also rodeo performers, generally also called "cowboys."
- But it is grammatically incorrect; i.e. shouldn't it be Category:Cowboys? What about Category:Cowboy culture? And what about those Cowgirls? Quis separabit? 16:04, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- On the plural, I don't really have strong feelings, arguments both ways, solved by a simple move if needed, meh. As for the gender issue, it's quite tricky because women in the industry today pretty much work equally with men and the term "cowgirl" has acquired some unfortunate alternative meanings to the point that we made a conscious choice to merge the cowgirl article with cowboy in order to avoid "ghettoizing" women, to avoid duplicative material, and to cut down on the vandalism. "Cowboy culture" already exists as a category, with articles about museums and such, so I guess I am wondering why this is even being raised - no need to depopulate the category "cowboy"... Montanabw(talk) 02:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- At the very, very least, it should be Renamed to Category:American cowboys, based upon parent cats, and that cats of people should be plural. And the "non-people" articles should be split to Category:Cowboy culture per nom. - jc37 03:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the word "cowboy" inherently implies "American." "Cowboys" in other nations include the charro, the gaucho, and so on. We also have Category:Horse-related professions and professionals and ((Mounted stock herders)). You are making this unnecessarily complicated. Montanabw(talk) 18:44, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- No. it's not. And no, I'm not. If only one looks at the article cowboy, and even the discussion here. But if that isn't enough for you, then how about also due to the other subcats of Category:American people by occupation. Though after checking further research, the name should probably be: Category:American cowboys and cowgirls. - jc37 19:07, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Cowboys, which is grammatically correct (and is, bizarrely and improperly, currently a soft redirect to the cattleman category). Neutralitytalk 02:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- rename to Category:Cowboys and do nothing else as this will reflect the contents. Other incorrect cross references I have already fixed. Hmains (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- support move to Category:Cowboys and Vaqueros. American cowboys, their culture, and their technology, could never have existed without Mexican ranchers who pioneered what it means to be a "cowboy". --100.32.136.225 (talk) 04:06, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - We also have other Mexican and Latin American cattle-handling traditions, shall we make it way too complicated? Imagine Category:Cowboys and Vaqueros and Charros and Gauchos and... - see ((Mounted stock herders)): If we really want to go into historical antecedents, then we need to go back to Europe, then the Moorish tradition, then Ancient Persia... I think we have, or could have Category:Vaquero or Category:Vaqueros, and both cats could go to a larger parent category for stockmen of various sorts. Montanabw(talk) 18:07, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Cowboys. Some of the people in this category gained notability as writers, and never were big time proprietors that would be designated as Cattlemen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:24, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Meanwhile all topic articles seem to have been moved to Category:Cowboy culture already so there is no longer a need to split as per nomination. Support alternative to rename to Category:Cowboys. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2015 (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.