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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1795 in the Austrian Netherlands to Category:1795 in the Southern Netherlands
• Propose renaming Category:1795 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands to Category:1795 disestablishments in the Southern Netherlands
• Propose renaming Category:1796 in the Austrian Netherlands to Category:1795 in the Southern Netherlands
• Propose renaming Category:1796 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands to Category:1795 disestablishments in the Southern Netherlands
• Propose renaming Category:1797 in the Austrian Netherlands to Category:1795 in the Southern Netherlands
• Propose renaming Category:1797 disestablishments in the Austrian Netherlands to Category:1795 disestablishments in the Southern Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: rename, Austrian rule in the Southern Netherlands ended in 1794. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Post-1794 categories need a different name, though perhaps 1795-1815 categories should be merged to France or at least parented thus. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Parenting is a good idea, merging not so much, because it mostly concerns disestablishments of things that had only existed in the Southern Netherlands. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Although under French occupation from 1794, the Austrian Netherlands only legally ceased to exist in 1797, with the Treaty of Campo Formio. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 17:16, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but as the Austrians had left the country it would be odd to still name it Austrian Netherlands after 1794. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Netherlands was still the Netherlands even when the queen was in London and the Germans were running things. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not a fair comparison. The Netherlands were not occupied by another country and not named after that country before the Germans came in 1940. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The proposal, though at some level a fudge, is superior to the present situation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:38, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Years of the 18th century in Belgium to Category:Years of the 18th century in the Southern Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: rename, Belgium did not exist yet in the 18th century. Southern Netherlands is more appropriate as a target (more encompassing) than Austrian Netherlands because the Southern Netherlands were annexed by France in 1794. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Query So this would only be true for 7 years (1794 - 1800)? What about the other 93 years? Wouldn't Southern Netherlands be safer? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that is exactly the intention of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. Should have read the proposal properly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per explanations above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2019 (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: delete. MER-C 09:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Jamaican Nigerian to Category:Nigerian people of Jamaican descent‎

Nominator's rationale: No articles Rathfelder (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin note: as the nominated category only contains the target category, and that sub-cat does not need to be merged into the parents, what is actually required here (if approved) is simple deletion. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 1 May 2019 (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: do not merge. MER-C 09:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Jamaican American to Category:American people of Jamaican descent

Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap Rathfelder (talk) 16:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, however Category:Jamaican-American history‎ should be moved to Category:Jamaican diaspora instead of to Category:American people of Jamaican descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmains below has a fair point. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:16, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• not agree the categories are not the same. Category:Jamaican American is and properly belongs to its parent category Category:Caribbean American with its 10 sub-categories, which is not being nominated for any change, so this should not be changed either. Category:Caribbean American belongs to its parent category Category:American people of Caribbean descent, a different category tree. Hmains (talk) 15:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Happy to withdraw. I now see the point of these categories is to encompass more than just biographies. Rathfelder (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2019 (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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:AQHA Hall of Fame (horses)
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:AQHA Hall of Fame (members)
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:NCHA Hall of Fame (horses)
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:NCHA Hall of Fame (members)
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:NCHA Hall of Fame (riders)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

A majority of the current horse articles in the NCHA category are also in the AQHA hall of fame while all of the current human articles in the AQHA hall of fame are also in the NCHA hall of fame, which creates an interesting Venn diagram. Horses and humans alike actually are defined by their participation in the prominent AQHA and NCHA organizations but it's their success in competitions and events that make both notable. Receiving these awards, often in retirement, is just a reflection of that earlier success and doesn't seem defining. Many of the articles mention the awards in passing; where they are mentioned in the lede it is often due the contributions of the editor who also created all five of these categories and many equestrian articles. AQHA has an equestrian art museum in Amarillo that lists the winners while, as far as I can tell, NCHA is internet only. The contents of the categories are already listified here, here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Background We deleted similar Kentucky horse racing hall of fame here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not versed enough in categories to understand what you're wanting to do. Unlike the American Quarter Horse Association (AQHA) which is a breed registry, the National Cutting Horse Association (NCHA) is focused on a specific event that is open to all breeds of horses - a mule even competed once. The AQHA and NCHA are both located in Texas where the largest number of AQHA registered horses and NCHA cutting horses happen to be. Yes, some of the NCHA-AQHA HoF overlaps but each is notable in its own right. I'm not sure if it matters but there are also American Paint Horses registered in the American Paint Horse Association that includes HoF members & horses that compete in NCHA cutting events. The "members" HoF in both AQHA & NCHA do not necessarily include people who are notable only as competitors, so I'm not sure what you're referring to as "their success in competitions and events"; that would be the riders HoF. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While the stated purposes of each organizations is quite different, here in Wikipedia these categories apply to some of the same articles so I thought it made sense to discuss them together. (You are quite correct though that I failed to provide a specific concern about Category:NCHA Hall of Fame (members) so I'll do so now: the articles are already well categorized in Category:American Quarter Horse owners and breeders, Category:Horse trainers and similar categories and the award seems WP:NONDEFINING.) RevelationDirect (talk) 20:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I don't understand the message on these categories about listyfing them: AQHA Hall of Fame (horses) and AQHA Hall of Fame (members) due to the fact that a list article already exists for them: American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame, which you acknowledge. Having both a category and a list article is quite common. I probably would oppose removing the categories. I am not clear on what you are proposing. montanabw ealdgyth Can you comment? dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:21, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Clarification @Atsme and Montanabw: Whether other other editors agree with me or not, I never want to leave them confused because that's not a good way to work together to improve the encyclopedia! To back up a little bit, Articles need to meet WP:NOTABILITY for being read while Categories need to meet WP:DEFINING for aiding navigation. I'm proposing that the list articles meet their guideline and should be kept but the categories do not meet their guideline and should be deleted. I appreciate your feedback above. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD, you pinged me & montanabw but did not ping dawnleelynn who actually posed the question, so I just did that for you. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

atsme I appreciate the thought Atsme, thank you so much! I have added this page to my Watchlist temporarily to make it easier. I also had included Ealdgyth for the the Quarter Horse categories because it is her area of expertise really, out of all of us, and more of the articles are authored by her than any of us. She need not feel obligated to comment, but I wanted to give her the opportunity. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:37, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RevelationDirect, I'm a bit late to this party, but you seem to be confusing lists with navigation aids. I see no clear line for the applicability of WP:OCAWARD, as clearly, there are many award categories and the guideline is very vague and unclear. Show us the largest HOF category you think needs deletion and let's see if there is any good reason for this. HOF induction is actually quite defining in many fields, as unlike one-time awards (even those as major as the Academy Awards), these are usually lifetime achievement honors, and as such, help define the notability of the individuals so honored. Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the largest recent one was the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees which had about 1,000 articles if I recall although much larger non-HOF award categories have been deleted. Life-time achievement awards can certainly be defining in some cases and, in others, they just reflect earlier accomplishments which we already have well categorized. Life-time achievement awards are subject to the same WP:OCAWARD standard as any other award, not more or less. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - we are only just beginning to create this genre of sports articles, and if I'm understanding the proposal correctly - deletion of the individual HoF categories - I feel it would be a disservice to readers seeking to find only Hall of Fame members or horses and having to syphon through all the other categories to find them. If I want to find a HoF football player, I would go to Category:Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees. Perhaps the hierarchy could be AQHA Hall of Fame, with subcategories and the same for NCHA? Not all trainers, horses and non-pro riders are in the HoF so having to sort through all those other categories would not be very helpful. I am also concerned about lists being properly maintained. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Beyond the 16 equestrian HOF inductee categories we already have, would you favor adding an additional category for the American Paint Horse Association's hall of fame and potentially others as well? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RD, yes - but with the goal in mind that it will make things as easy, organized and efficient as possible. When I create an article about someone or some horse who was inducted into one or more of the respective HoF, it is much easier to add them to that category than attempt to create a list (or add to a list), most of which contain nothing more than stats (name, event, points and/or monies earned, city, state). It is so much easier to just add the category VS finding the list and duplicating info that is already in the infobox and article. If someone is looking for a list of HoF members, horses, riders, trainers, or whatever, they can go to the category to see if the person/horse they're looking for is there, click on the link, and get all the info they need at the article. Does that make sense? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:02, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• AtsmeRD, It totally makes the sense because I did exactly the same thing with the first Hall of Fame article/category I created! I came to change my mind on that approach though partly because award categories (broadly defined) create so much category clutter. (If you scroll to the bottom of this article, there is an extreme example.) More importantly, I found out lists can be awesome when they're not just a bulleted text and are worth focusing on over categories. The Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame article has a sortable list I created that users have a more interactive experience where they can sort by name, year or sport depending on what's important to them. (And article creators can change what columnns are used to fit the hall of fame; maybe a "Species" header with Horse or Human, haha.) While that list is probably a good model to start with, I'm hardly the creator the best lists: List of tallest buildings in Chicago is just beautifully laid out. Even though we disagree on this nomination, I really appreciate the work you're doing both with the halls of fame and the biography articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The best place to find links to Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees is List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees (it can be sorted several ways, referenced, contain redlinks). DexDor ^(talk) 17:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But DexDor, how would anyone even know the list article exists if it's not in a category?? Categories are navigation aids, and while they can be overdone, Halls of Fame seem to be a bad place to draw the line. Montanabw^(talk) 17:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just follow normal article-to-article/list links. DexDor ^(talk) 17:58, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- more NN OCAWARD. Listify wherever there is no list. Award categories cause category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm going to address the comment about the halls of fame (which is really not an award- an award would be winning an AQHA championship) not being notable. Please see WP:NHORSERACING which actually establishes that national racing halls of fame are notable; thereby being inducted into the AQHA Hall of Fame is notable. Some AQHA Hall of Fame horses are also ProRodeo Hall of Fame horses, which are also notable under WP:NRODEO. Some may be also be doubly notable under WP:NEQUESTRIAN. atsme, do you know which one cutting falls under? dawnleelynn^(talk) 17:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Halls of fame has been a subcategory of Category:Awards since the oldest edit entry in 2008. (We totally agree about notability for the articles though, per my "Clarification" post further above.) RevelationDirect (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification; I missed that one. Glad we agree on the article notability. About the Awards category, halls of fame is also under two other categories. I think the article List of halls and walks of fame, makes it pretty clear they are not considered awards. Putting them under the Awards category doesn't automatically change what they are. See definition: [1] Museums by type is actually a great place to list them some of them under. So many of the halls of fame are part of a museum. I would say at least half of them are museums. The American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame is also a museum. [2]. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DLL - it would be WP:NEQUESTRIAN or WP:GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:03, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

atsme Yes, ok thank you, that makes sense. Hope I didn't forget to ping you in any of this. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, to make it really simple, an athlete receives an award for winning an event like a trophy or some physical form of recognition, prize, and money. With a hall of fame, the athlete is inducted with no activity from them and becomes part of a hall of fame list. The list may be physical or written or online or some combination of those, depending on the organization. Many halls of fame will write up a summary about the inductee as well. The members of the AQHA hall of fame have induction pages on the website that tell a story about their life. You can visit the AQHA Hall of Fame and Museum in person; they have exhibits. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I again found myself agreeing with you (even as we disagree on this nomiantion). In Wikpedia, I think the redlinks in Hall of Fames lists are especially useful as "to dos" for creating missing but notable articles. And the HOF web sites provide a wealth of information on each inductee to get that started. WikiProject Women in Red in particular does a great job with regularly getting rid of the red links in Women's halls of fame lists to help improve the encyclopedia. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/listify per WP:DNWAUC etc. DexDor ^(talk) 17:13, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as an editor who has edited sporadically on horse related articles. Both list and category are fine and will make access for the reader easier per earlier comments. I'm not convinced there was a problem here in the first place–the nomination is somewhat unclear which may be a result of forcing WP:OCAWARD WP:NONDEFINING onto a situation where they don't really pertain. This is one of those situations where if its not broken (and not clear or at least hazy about what the problem is) don't fix it (or just leave it alone). Littleolive oil (talk) 17:26, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  To add to Littleolive oil's comments, the proposed rationale WP:OCAWARD reads that it applies to awards and the examples given therein are about awards. There is no mention or example of any halls of fame. As for WP:NONDEFINING, a hall of fame inductee is a defining characteristic. All of the inductees can be defined by this characteristic, while their awards vary and some horses would not be articles if not for their induction. This also applies to the NCHA. Would the proposer like to take a guess at what awards are notable or not? What categories, if any, would be defining and allowed from these articles, in the proposer's estimation? cc: atsme dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, horses can be notable for more than just competition and events. They can be notable for being sires and broodmares. And there is a category for sires. And a category for racehorses. I gather these must be defining. I'm not sure what you mean by saying that humans and horses are defined by their participation in AQHA and NCHA organizations. No, they are defined by their success, whether in organizations or out of it. See Peter McCue and Bert (horse). But who defines what actually makes them notable for Wikipedia? You know it isn't just any award. For rodeo, it is a set thing, the National Finals Rodeo, for example. I am not sure what all the notable items are for quarter horses. Atsme may know. But again, a hall of fame is not an award and it is not a reflection of their earlier success. Many times, a hall of fame induction can reflect further participation in their retirement in their previous field. [3] And often, it can be the only notable thing they have and the reason they are notable enough to have an article (See Peter McCue again.) And no matter how much space is given to the hall of fame induction in an article, it doesn't diminish its importance. And what is important about the AQHA having an equestrian art museum in Amarillo? As I stated earlier, there is an American Quarter Horse Hall of Fame & Museum with exhibits, which is more pertinent than art. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC) p.s. I happen to know that many of the articles' had content that came from the AQHA Hall of Fame member's induction pages, btw. dawnleelynn^(talk) 22:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I add: Hall of Fame is generally considered for a lifetime/extended level of achievement rather than a single award for a specific event. I think some of the confusion here has to do with misunderstanding the importance of an award that is given for long-term achievement, and that the weight and notability such a distinction carries exceeds that of any single award. Littleolive oil (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Littleolive oil Good point. It's also about their conduct, contributions to the sport, sportmanship, character during their career. dawnleelynn^(talk) 00:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Both the horses mentioned above are actually good examples of the HoF being non-defining. In both cases membership of the HoF was awarded decades after the horse died and, unsurprisingly, it gets just a mention at the end of the article text.  Categories such as Category:American Quarter Horse racehorses and Category:American Quarter Horse sires are categorizing by much more defining characteristics.  DexDor ^(talk) 16:49, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  DexDor, they are not good examples. To begin, not all Quarter Horses are HoF race horses, not all race horses are American Quarter Horses, not all sires are HoF sires and not all HoF sires are American Quarter Horses, and why we need the categories and subcategories. WP:Category states: The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. The key words being "which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages..." FYI - the reason Peter McCue and Bert were inducted into the AQHA HoF long after they died is because the AQHA registry didn't exist until March 14, 1940, and the AQHA Hall of Fame's 1st four horses weren't inducted until 1989. Arguing for the deletion of categories when one doesn't quite understand the topic is quite taxing on those of us who do...Please drop the stick. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 19:43, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the subjects in these categories are defined as racehorses, racehorsing trainers etc. The fact that they are a Hall of Fame inductee is merely a derivative of their success, which is not very informative in wp, because their notability for wp is also a derivative of their success. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Marcocapelle They are defined as racehorses, sires, breeding stallions, broodmares, cutting, reining, showing, producers, halter, and rodeo horses. The people are defined as racing, cutting, showing, breeders, judges, jockeys, ranchers, trainers, presidents, painters, founding members, auctioneers, and veterinarions. Billy Clegg did not race for example. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC) p.s. See Country Classic for an example of what a real AQHA horse is all about. He won dozens of different AQHA awards, competed in barrel racing, cutting, worked as a cowhorse, it's just a huge list of events he competed in and won in, and never raced while also working in real world activities. dawnleelynn^(talk) 16:31, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Country Classic is well categorized by Category:American Quarter Horse show horses. DexDor ^(talk) 07:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: These nominations appear to be more for small-scale HOF categories, with reasoning that is inconsistent. Also, lists are not navigation tools, categories are, and as such, these need to stay. Halls of Fame, if the sponsoring organization is notable within a given industry, are notable enough that their inductees should be categorized. The OCAWARD criteria is vague and being applied arbitrarily. Let's start with Category:Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees and work down, not up. There is no clear line here other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Never heard of it" is not an valid deletion criteria. Montanabw^(talk) 17:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Lists are a way of navigating between articles (and a way that readers are more likely to use than categories). You may find WP:CLN informative. DexDor ^(talk) 05:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we all might be agreeable to merging the lists together. Merge the two AQHA lists into one list, and the three NCHA lists into one? Atsme? montanabw? dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The categories are needed as I've already explained above. They are easy to navigate and maintain. The sheer numbers of horses, trainers, breeders, members and HoF inductees for the AQHA alone makes the NFL HoF pale in comparison. We are talking about hundreds of thousands of members and millions of horses worldwide. And that is just one breed association. I defer to Montanabw's statement above. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 03:13, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re "are needed" - I've looked at your comments above (specifically searching for "need") and not found it; if these categories were deleted what policy would it break? E.g. would it mean any articles are impossible to categorize? Are you aware that most readers (using Mobile, rather than Desktop, view) won't even see the category links at the bottom of articles? DexDor ^(talk) 06:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DexDor, search "Atsme" and read the comments starting with my Oppose ivote. They explain why they should be kept, so having to say "need" isn't needed. Along the same lines as your policy question above, if the categories remained because the equine project members feel they serve a good purpose and the stated reasons for deletion are not applicable, what policy would it break to keep them? What may appear to be clutter to some is organization and efficiency to others. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:42, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the relevant part of your earlier comment is "I feel it would be a disservice to readers ...."; that's quite a way from saying that they "are needed" - and ignores that most readers don't see any link to the categories (hence, if they wanted to navigate specifically to HoF members, would use the lists). DexDor ^(talk) 12:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme Oh I said lists, my bad! I meant we could merge the categories together. In the ProRodeo Hall of Fame inductees category, the people and the animals are in the same category. The two AQHA categories could possibly be merged together is what I meant. And the three NCHA... Sorry about that!... dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:52, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, in my research I have discovered that one test of whether a category is defining is if it would be appropriate to mention in the lead of an article. See WP:DEFINING. This category surely meets that test based on the fact that the hall of fame is notable enough to be listed in a subject-specific notability guideline and make its inductees notable for an article as well. See WP:NHORSERACING or WP:NEQUESTRIAN as national halls of fame. Thus, it is definitely appropriate to be listed in the lead section of an article. The hall of fames sources are vetted more thoroughly to be reliable sources in the notability guideline. Also, see WP:DEFINING where it says that "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources comonly and consistently define the subject as having." dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect: Atsme New information. WP:DEFINING states: "Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics...this includes...the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is known for." We have people and horses in these categories; can we separate them fairly or will we treat them the same? At any rate, these halls of fame are mentioned in every article, many are in the lead or will soon be so. In almost all cases, the hall of fame categories are giving these inductees their notability. Well, it's the one that is in a subject-specific notability guideline. By that argument, if I am applying it correctly, these categories are defining. But I welcome friendly discussion naturally. Atsme, please correct any information about the articles. At any rate, this discussion has been stagnant for about two months. dawnleelynn^(talk) 15:16, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matters not to me - ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:00, 29 June 2019 (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: listify. MER-C 09:36, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

The New Zealand Sports Hall of Fame was created in 1990 as part of the celebration for New Zealand being founded 150 years previously in 1840. Accordingly, the vast majority of inductees were active long before the organization existed. The challenge with anything under Category:All-sports halls of fame, is that different sports have different career routes (Olympics, professional teams, college coaching) so it's hard for a single award to be defining. The articles I clicked through were about evenly split between those that mentioned the award in passing and those that didn't mention it at all. Since the sesquicentennial, the phsyical displays for the hall of fame have been moved to Dunedin railway station. The contents of the category are already listified here within the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Background We previosly deleted every single All Sports halls of fame in the United States, most recently here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose Nominations for many halls of fame are ongoing for small-scale HOF categories. Inconsistent reasoning. The argument that a list article negates the need for a category is poor as only a category is a navigation aid. The HOF and its sponsoring organization are notable enough in this case that it needs to stay. The OCAWARD criteria is vague and being applied arbitrarily. There is no clear line here other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. "Never heard of it" is not valid deletion criteria. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, clearly non-defining, many articles in this category do not even mention the fact, and if they do it is low in the list of achievements. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Additional information. Using information about the hall of fame, and using information about how it is applied in articles is clearly outlined in the notability guidelines as having no effect on the notability of subjects. The points made by the proposer and Marcocapelle clearly go against policy. See WP:NNC "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists (with the exception of some lists, which restrict inclusion to notable items or people). And see WP:ARTN "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Lastly, see WP:NEXIST "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." Thus, the subjects, the hall of fame and its inductees are inherently notable wherever they are as well, in a main article, list or a category. Regarding the supposed need to DELETE/LISTIFY, the policy WP:CLNT states, "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others." dawnleelynn^(talk) 04:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC) I'm adding that per our discussion on my talk page I now realize that you are not arguing that because a list exists, the category needs to deleted.dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do disagree with WP:OCAWARD as it does not mention halls of fame and because a hall of fame honor is not an award. Again, questions remain on the definingness policy's statement that it is based on reliable sources, but I find no policy that states judgments can be made on those reliable sources, so what bearing does the hall's location have or the time period of its inductions? dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC) However, I now recognize that the mention of the induction in the articles is about half, as stated. The notice is in the category, so if someone cared enough about it they would address the issue. dawnleelynn^(talk) 19:12, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by your repeated claims that I am somehow calling the notability of the halls of fame articles' into question. Whenever you are free, I reiterate my offer discuss further on your talk page and avoid such misunderstandings in the future. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Subjects are notable, not articles, just an FYI. WP:ARTN "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article." dawnleelynn^(talk) 18:28, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as non-defining. The first article in the category that I looked at (Barry Magee) doesn't even mention the HoF in the article text. DexDor ^(talk) 18:40, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I looked through some of the inductees articles. Some did not mention the induction. Some mentioned it in External links. Some mentioned it among other honors, and the other honors were mostly more notable than it, like an Olympic medal or Cricket Hall of Fame. The external Hall of Fame website is a reliable source, but it's not defining enough to keep the category. It seems like this hall of fame exists to track all of the athletes from other sports who are notable in those sports, but it just doesn't seem appropriate for a mention in the lead of an article. dawnleelynn^(talk) 21:46, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:: p.s. I think that the readers will search for the athlete in the sport they performed in for the most part. dawnleelynn^(talk) 23:58, 6 May 2019 (UTC) I am striking this because I now believe it not backed up by any policy. dawnleelynn^(talk) 20:34, 7 May 2019 (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: delete. MER-C 09:37, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Descendants of Io (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential keep -- This is a modest and probably limited-scope category about Greek mythology. The two noms below this call for merger to a dynasty, but there is none here. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• How does this counter WP:NONDEF? For example, Danaus was the son of King Belus of Egypt and the naiad Achiroe, daughter of the river god Nilus. There is nothing in the body text of the article about Io, the only appearance of Io is in the full family tree, together with all other family members. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Marcocapelle, it's usually best to give an example of where the characteristic is non-defining in the CFD nom. DexDor ^(talk) 20:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Categories shouldn't be used to represent details of family trees like this (especially in mythology where there may be things that are unclear etc); article text and diagrams are the way to do that. Categories such as Category:Kings in Greek mythology are sufficient categorization. DexDor ^(talk) 20:26, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm looking at the family tree by scrolling up from here and Zeus seems to be the defining factor here. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2019 (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: merge to Category:Achaemenid dynasty. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Descendants of Cyrus the Great to Category:Achaemenid dynasty

Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. T8612 (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2019 (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.