Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 2

< January 1 January 3 >

January 2

Category:Former church buildings

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. Kbdank71 17:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Former church buildings in the United States into Category:Former churches in the United States
Suggest delete Category:Former church buildings
Nominator's rationale: Merge, All (United States) pages in these categories are former church bodies and former church buildings. There is no purpose in have two categories with the same content. Category:Former church buildings has no pages and only the one above subcategory. Carlaude (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The Dutch Reformed Church in Newburgh, NY, for example, is a congregation that still exists in another building, with a name change but the same organization that had the original church built. Churches are organizations not identical to the buildings they erect; nominator has (IMO) started the wrong CFD. We should be renaming Category:Former churches and its subcats to "Defunct churches", actually. Daniel Case (talk) 06:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. I have started that discussion now. Daniel Case (talk) 06:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you would have been wiser to conclude this discussion first.--Carlaude (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take your word for it that it that the Newburgh congregation that still exists in another building. You have failed to even reflect this fact in the article, Dutch Reformed Church (Newburgh, New York). But even with the one article (if it is ever updated) to put in a Category:Former church buildings in the United States, this is not suffient for maintaining either of the two categories.--Carlaude (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There are certainly other churches on the National Register of Historic Places, and elsewhere, about which this might be true. Yes, I didn't put that in the article (I thought I had), and I will soon. But that doesn't mean you don't have to respond to my argument, which you haven't done. Daniel Case (talk) 00:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And let me add that looking through Category:Former church buildings in the United States, I found several entries — The Church Brew Pub, Springville Center for the Arts — that don't overlap with the other category, contrary to the nom. Daniel Case (talk) 04:46, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again the Springville Center for the Arts page gives no indication that the unnamed "Baptist Church dating to the 1860s" still continues at another location (if the author cannot even name the congregation, why would we assume it still exists) and The Church Brew Works is housed in the building of St. John the Baptist Church, a parish "officially decommissioned by the Diocese of Pittsburgh in 1993." These example are not adding to your case.--Carlaude (talk) 19:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when would a church be named "Brew Works"? There's no need for an article on the former congregation. To categorize that as a "former church" creates confusion that we don't need to. Daniel Case (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because there would not be a church be named "Brew Works" (your point) it would not create confusion it have it in a Category:Former churches-- it would clearly stand as an article on a former church building.--Carlaude (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Church buildings by country is a category is for "specific buildings that are used as churches and specific church congregations." All the categories in it... such as Category:Churches in XXX are also for "specific buildings that are used as churches and specific church congregations."--Carlaude (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This would be a step in the wrong direction. All the articles I've looked at are not only about churches in the sense of buildings, but about ones built by church organizations whose congregations should not be called "churches" - whether Christian Scientists, Mormons, Dutch Reformed or Episcopalians. These categories are confusing enough without introducing this mistake. 'Reverse merge Category:Former church buildings into Category:Former churches for clarity. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would be puzzled by your comments here if not for a comment you made on the other "CFD". I gather that you live in part of the English-speaking part or Christian world where a local congregation is not ever a "church". Read the wiktionary (or any other Dictionary for that matter). In this case #2 reads "A Christian religious organization, local or general". You seem to think that a church is only a building or a general Christian organization. Of course if this is not your point either, then let us know.
I'm not aware this use of the word varies very geographically, but it is the third and least obvious meaning (after denomination and building), not the correct formal term within the large denominations, and we are already in quite enough confusion without introducing this sense of the word into categories. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also-- what would be a 'Reverse merge? What do you want to unmerge from each other? --Carlaude (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Reverse Merge" means merge in the oppose direction: Reverse merge Category:Former church buildings into Category:Former churches for clarity" ie merge, and call it Category:Former church buildings. I haven't seen any of these articles that are not based around the building, though they may cover the history of the congregation or not. In all the cases I've seen, it is the building that is "former"; the congregation either moved on to a new building or merged with another. Johnbod (talk) 21:15, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Thought you meant "reverse merge" as in split something up-- but you want an Downmerge.
You want
I can Support Downmerge--Carlaude (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger. I don't care how it is done - either by leaving things alone or by changing names for clarity, but we need three categories: former church buildings, former church congregations, and former church denominations. The categories should be clearly described and have obvious labels. I recommend withdrawing the existing CFDs and relisting them together. If you will not be changing Category:Former Christian denominations in the relist, then say so. In the relist, be sure to describe what is to happen to all the subcats. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:49, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with you, and I would leave things as they are. Carlaude started this because he didn't think we need to distinguish betyween churches and buildings. I felt we did, and the responses I see show that I'm not the only one. Daniel Case (talk) 04:43, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So do you want two categories? or just one? I would be fine with two categories, if we had or have the number of articles to justify both categories. --Carlaude (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may: I don't know how many articles qualify as notable former church buildings, but if it's not very many, then there should be no such category. Likewise, if the number of articles that qualify as notable former church congregations is low, there should be no such category. Many notable former churches would fall under both categories. In any case, the categories should not be merged. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Typically these articles are short stubs with only a minimal amount of information on either the building or the congregation. Sometimes, when they are longer the building is more fully covered & sometimes (less often I would say) the congregation. Notability is pretty dubious for both sides in many cases, imo. I don't see any sense in having 2 categories; as far as I can see, it is nearly always the building that is "former". Johnbod (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you look you will see that it is nearly always the both that are "former," but nearly always the building the main subject of the article-- just as in most articles of the Category:Church buildings category tree, the building is the main subject of the article. --Carlaude (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to go with only one, the buildings cat is more defensible, as you seem to be suggesting. Most of my additions to that cat were from the NRHP, so while they may be stubs they have that notability claim. Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The accepted direction is to split building and congregations and to not obfuscate them in a single ambiguous category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2009 (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.

Categories:Irish expatriate association footballers

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. Kbdank71 17:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: as per wikip convention to 'disambiguate' football with reference to Ireland between gaelic football and association football. All other related cat pages use the disambiguate 'association', such as in Category:Republic of Ireland association footballers, Category:Northern Irish association footballers, Category:Expatriate association footballers in the Republic of Ireland and Category:Expatriate association footballers in Northern Ireland Mayumashu (talk)
  • REname as nom. The existence of Gaelic football (though it probably does not have expatriates) means that the present name is ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:36, 3 January 2009 (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:Pakistan diaspora

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) 00:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Pakistan diaspora to Category:Pakistani diaspora
Nominator's rationale: The two categories appear to cover identical content. The adjectival form is more commonly used for similar categories. PamD (talk) 15:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom. Clear duplicates and "Pakistani" is the better version. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom - the adjectival form is required. Cgingold (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2009 (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 the Eastern Cape

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. Kbdank71 17:10, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from the Eastern Cape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Rename to Category:People from Eastern Cape in order to standarize Category:People by province in South Africa Thomas.macmillan (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2009 (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 the Free State (South African province)

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. Kbdank71 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from the Free State (South African province) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Rename to Category:People from Free State in order to standardize Category:People by province in South AfricaThomas.macmillan (talk) 15:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Free state is highly ambiguous. 76.66.198.171 (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was just renamed in November after consensus settled on this as an acceptable name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:50, 3 January 2009 (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 the Western Cape

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. Kbdank71 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from the Western Cape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Propose renaming it Category:People from Western Cape in order to standardize Category:People by province in South AfricaThomas.macmillan (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2009 (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:Works by Francis Bacon

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. Kbdank71 17:07, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Works by Francis Bacon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When we touched on this question in the other CFD I said, "I think 'philosopher' would be more precise and more readily understood." To elaborate, we should aim for a category name that will be readily grasped by readers. Bacon was, of course, many things, but I think he is probably best known as a "philosopher". So I think that using that term would give the category name the highest likelihood of being properly understood as referring to this particular F. Bacon -- whereas "writer", by comparison, is perhaps a bit too generic. Cgingold (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support for rename to provide for dab category. I would be happy with "philosopher", with "writer" or "author" as a second preference. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per previous discussion in CfD about painter. As creator, I'm fine with any of the proposed options, though I agree that "philosopher" probably better captures Bacon's status than "writer" would. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:13, 3 January 2009 (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:WCAU-TV

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. Kbdank71 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WCAU-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:WCAU-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete WP:OCAT per precedent against categorizing individual people by networks or television stations that they've worked for. Additionally, at some point in their history they were supposed to be merged into a single category, but for some reason the merge-out category was simply filed as a subcategory of the target instead, with the result that there are now two categories simultaneously serving the same purpose. Bearcat (talk) 06:30, 2 January 2009 (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:British Ice Hockey 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:British Ice Hockey Hall of Fame to Category:British Ice Hockey Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: page lists inductees Mayumashu (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom and per innumerable categories establishing this as the correct naming format. Otto4711 (talk) 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as category is about the inductees, not the building. Alansohn (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2009 (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:Polling 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: delete; only user pages remain in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Polling templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Per Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 29#Vote- templates, there won't be anything left in this cat other than a user's userfied polling templates. No need in a cat now. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 03:42, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose . I see no reason for deleting These. --macbookair3140 (talk) 17:21, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean by "these"? It's just this one category that, at the close of the Templates for Discussion going on at the link I gave above, will have nothing in it but a single user's own vote! templates and therefore the category won't be necessary or needed as it serves for no official Wikipedia templates. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 21:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and delete all the templates as well. Wikipedia is not run by polling. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The templates have all already been deleted. The only ones left in the category are a user's own polling templates - which is why this cat is nommed here for deletion, it's not being used by any official templates. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 13:43, 7 January 2009 (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.

Categories:People by state, etc. in Fooia

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
  • Category:Brazilian people by state to Category:People by state in Brazil
  • Category:Malaysian people by state to Category:People by state in Malaysia
  • Category:Pakistani people by subdivision to Category:People by subdivision in Pakistan
  • Category:Filipino people by province to Category:People by province in the Philippines
  • Category:Swiss people by canton to Category:People by canton in Switzerland
  • Category:People by Russian federal subject to Category:People by federal subject in Russia
Nominator's rationale: as per naming pattern of other sub-cat pages of Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision, 'People by state, etc. in Fooia'. (It was established because not everyone from or of a place is necessarily a citizen of the country that that place is located in.) The remaining 44 links follow this pattern. Mayumashu (talk) 03:40, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename but is the Russian one correctly formed? Perhaps republic? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:43, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It seems odd but is correct - Federal subjects of Russia Mayumashu (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename per nom. Neier (talk) 12:13, 6 January 2009 (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:State Sponsors of Terrorism

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, already an article. Kbdank71 17:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article. Delete. Category:State Sponsors of Terrorism to article State Sponsors of Terrorism
Nominator's rationale: At first I thought this was a doozy of a POV category but it's just an article about the formal U.S. designation mistakenly created as a category. Should this be a separate article or should it just be merged into Allegations of state terrorism by the United States since it essentially covers the same ground? Changed to deletion nomination per below—it's a verbatim reproduction of the applicable article. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space - this is an article masquerading as a category. There appear to be some references for the current content as an article but no articles are categorized under this heading. Move it to article space and let WP:AFD sort it out. Otto4711 (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The proper article already exists at State Sponsors of Terrorism. Allegations of state terrorism by the United States is not about the U.S. making the allegations, but of committing the terrorism, and is thus unrelated.-choster (talk) 06:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, I'm not sure why I didn't realise my mistakes here at first. I've amended the nomination; it looks like it's largely a duplication so can be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:31, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Must've been that New Year's hangover! (heh heh) On a more serious note, I would have sworn that there was a provision for Speedy Deletion of duplicate pages - but it doesn't seem to be included in the criteria at WP:CSD. A very strange oversight. Cgingold (talk) 15:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, was no doubt all of the holiday excitement I subjected myself to—finishing off the tainted leftover eggnog, perhaps... I thought duplicates were speedialbe too, but I can't find anything either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:05, 3 January 2009 (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:Kentucky colonels

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 wub "?!" 01:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kentucky colonels (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and Listify - per WP:OC, this is the sort of minor award that the people who receive it tend to accumulate. Otto4711 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note, can someone please jigger the cfd2 template so that it either displays the word Delete (the way that cfr2 displays Rename and cfm2 displays Merge) or remove the word "Delete" entirely? It used to display the word and was changed for absolutely no possible good reason. Otto4711 (talk) 02:15, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Note the prior discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:26, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep According to the previous CFD and the article, this is an honour conferred by the goivernor. We have British categories for orders of knighthood. I therefore do not see why this one should not exist. However it needs a sentence or two in a headnote to set out its scope, in the hope that army colonels from Kentucky will not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So we should have a category for every award bestowed by every governor? What exactly makes this defining for the individuals receiving the appointment? Are you saying that being appointed as fund raisers and ambassadors for Kentucky is defining? Shall we start adding those who have received the keys to a city? It seems to be about the same level of importance. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A better UK comparison is the category for ? "Freemen of the City of London" which was deleted some while back, as I think other similar ones have been. Johnbod (talk) 10:36, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a defining characteristic well-supported by sources. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the risk of violating détente, may I ask how exactly is being named a Kentucky colonel defining? Ask the next thousand people that you meet to list off ten things about, for example, Muhammad Ali. What is the likelihood that any of them will include "he's a Kentucky colonel" in that list? Otto4711 (talk) 01:54, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep While I couldn't name a single other award bestowed by state governors, being a Kentucky colonel does have a notable profile at the national and even national level. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:13, 5 January 2009 (UTC) :[reply]

  • Which is an argument for listifying, since notability is not the standard for categorization. Look at the list in the article to which you linked. For any of the people listed, do you think that being a Kentucky colonel would be in the top ten or even top 100 things that anyone would mention about them? I have for instance three book-length biographies of Joan Crawford and none of them even mention her being a Kentucky colonel. Otto4711 (talk) 10:45, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the list of most notable recipients in the article, no. You're right. But the majority of Colonels will not be as famous as Ali or Crawford, etc. They'd have to be notable enough to merit an article here, of course, but they'd also be less notable than the stellar handful short-listed. For this group, encylopedically notable but non-superstar, I'd argue the distinction becomes much more noteworthy. Andthese are going to make up the vast majority of bio articles we'll be dealing with. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:33, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Take someone less well-known then: Sidney M. Gutierrez. The fact that he is a Kentucky colonel is so important to his notability that it is not even mentioned in the text of the article. And yet he is in the category. OK, try Frank De Winne. Again, not even mentioned in the article. OK, Bryce Zabel. Not in the article. OK, what about the long-name guy: Alasdair Ranaldson MacDonell of Glengarry. Well, he has the title "Colonel" in the lead sentence but other than that not mentioned in the article. I chose these 4 totally at random as names I didn't recognize from those included, and none of them even mention the award in the article. Seriously. Yeah, it sounds pretty important for these less-notable people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's sometimes what categories are for, to add information about the article's subject that's not necessarily mentioned in the article. Besides, just because an article doesn't refer to something doesn't mean that it shouldn't or won't eventually. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:59, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. If it's not important enough to mention in the article, it's not defining for the person, and therefore it shouldn't be a category for them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy-cow-I-can't-believe-this-debate-who-are-these-people-KFC-fanatics?—DELETE—with-infinity-power-boost. I can't believe people are actually advancing arguments to keep. This is a non-defining award if there ever was one, and we routinely listify and delete these. It's basically like being made an "honorary citizen" of a country (except this is a U.S. state) or receiving an honorary academic degree. Anyone want to argue that this is at the level of a Nobel Prize or an Academy Award and therefore should be kept? I don't think so. It's defining for one person and one person only—that's right—The Colonel. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A "Kentucky colonel" has nothing to do with KFC. That remark weakens your position, so you may want to strike that out. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work 06:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do I have to explain all my jokes? Don't you know that humor is lame when it has to be explained? Harland Sanders, the founder of KFC, was a Kentucky colonel. He's often called "Colonel Saunders", and KFC used to stand for "Kentucky Fried Chicken". Get it? Get it? Jeez ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The "humor" adds nothing to the discussion. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • POV. I got a lot out of it, personally. And I it's a good way highlight the ridiculousness of the positions advanced while still trying to protect the feelings of those who advanced them. I don't want to hurt any feelings, so I'm trying to illustrate the ridiculous in a nicer way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A category makes more sense, as the honor is state-level, historical and has a limited number of notable recipients. Listifying only makes sense if there's a need to add more information to each entry, and I can't see a case for that here. Categorizing for notable honors/awards is not objectionable to me. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:57, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You consider over 2,000 as limited? What in your opinion shows that this award is defining for the recipients? This is a WP:ILIKEIT type of argument since that what is implied by the state-level argument seems like. I'll ask, specifically, for the thousands who have received this award, how many was it defining for? I'll argue that for most, if not all, it is the result of being notable for something else. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:18, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I'm going to have a nervous breakdown ... It would be so funny if I were more mentally stable ... oh so very funny ... (devolves into grotesque twitching combined with flailing attacks towards computer screen ... sustained gurgling) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you're over-analyzing this. And my reasoning clearly is not about "I like it", but instead "it makes a lot of rational sense". It is encyclopedic to categorize people by historical, state-level awards. Simple as that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:14, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "I think you're over-analyzing this" = "please don't confound my personal opinion with questions over how it's defining. I like it so we should keep it." Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obviously, you're becoming argumentative at this point. I have already fully explained how this is a defining aspect, and you are twisting my words in an extreme manner. I have stated my position in total, dispassionately, and see no reason to continue expanding upon it. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes, probably true (becoming argumentative, that is). I just can't see how your position amounts to anything more than "it's defining because I say it is." Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To expand upon my earlier position to keep, certainly a traditional, state-given honor that is given to so few (2,000 is indeed few, esp. given that our categorization is only concerned with those who have articles) is indeed an attribute of an individual, and therefore part of what defines them. Now, this probably wouldn't apply to every last person who has received this high honor, but in general, certainly, this is a distinguishable aspect of a person that could be used in describing them. We're not talking about low honors (such as "tee-ball champions"), but government-bestowed high honors. It's basically something like a Presidential Medal of Freedom or the Kennedy Center Honors at the state level. I would like to request that those who are trying to eliminating this category filter out any disgust they may have for the U.S. state of Kentucky and look at this dispassionately. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 06:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main problem with your position is that listifying categories for awards is pretty much the default procedure in WP when they are nominated. There's a massive amount of precedent for doing it, as reflected in Wikipedia:OC#Award_recipients: "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." Only very few award categories have ever been kept after discussion—such as the Nobels, the Oscars, etc. So in saying we should keep this one you're in a way forced into making the case that this award is in some way comparable to these other ones. No one has said anything about having any "disgust" for Kentucky, but it's probably true that no award bestowed by the head of any subnational entity—whether it's Kentucky or Saskatchewan—is going to rise to that level. Sorry, but it's just not. And now, back to my gurgling ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify then. I struck out my keep vote above. And yes, dammit, I admit it was the man's fried chicken that made me vote keep initially. I crave it fortnightly. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:28, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • As a (now deceased) member of "The Pentabulate", his adding that addictive chemical was just part of the plan to control the global drug trade. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure why there is this idea that a Kentucky Colonel (a state honor) has anything to do with KFC. On top of that, to confuse politics surrounding KFC with this state honor is rather befuddling. I hope you will reconsider your vote again. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above, where I've explicitly spelled out the reference. The founder of KFC was a Kentucky colonel, and is probably the person who is most easily identified by many people as a holder of the award. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Which was tantamount to propaganda against the Commonwealth of Kentucky. Your re-education of people is noted. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 17:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Propaganda against the ...." ? Hm—I didn't realise Kentucky-philes were so sensitive about the Commonwealth being identified with the Colonel. I remember when Kentucky Fried Chicken changed its name to KFC, but to me, it will always be Kentucky Fried Chicken. :) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I love the chicken myself, but this is not a defining award. There is much precedent to delete. --Kbdank71 17:04, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This state honor has nothing to do with KFC fried chicken. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 03:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I know. You can ignore the chicken part of my comment, if it's confusing. --Kbdank71 15:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If there are really some 2,000 Kentucky colonels (I can't find a source for that - or any - number, but I suspect the number is certainly in the thousands), shouldn't a listification include all of them, or as many names as can be verified? cmadler (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • In theory, yes, it could include anyone who's received this honor in history, which would be more than the 2000 that currently are alive. But I don't see that as a problem—lists evolve and grow in WP like everything else and there's nothing necessarily wrong with a list like this that is "incomplete". Due to sourcing problems with this award (there is no "official list" that I know of), the list will probably always be incomplete—it will just include those for whom we have reliable sources that say they received the award (which, I might add, does not include all those currently included in the category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Put that way, listify and mark as an incomplete list. cmadler (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Very notable state honor. We do need to make a separate article that lists most of them.--King Bedford I Seek his grace 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and Listify per Bedford and Stevietheman. Willking1979 (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep After looking at the Category and noting the lack of WikiLinks from the articles; I see no easy method of Listify-ing this. 2000 entries would have to be broken into several articles by "some qualifier" (probably notability?) - Category works far better; BUT there really needs to be a header with links to what the heck a "Kentucky Colonel" actually is... -- Mjquin_id (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2009 (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:International Boxing 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:International Boxing Hall of Fame to Category:International Boxing Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: Rename - in line with any number of similar categories. This is for inductees, not the hall itself. Otto4711 (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as category is about inductees, not the Hall of Fame itself. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Redirect to new name per above. -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:20, 7 January 2009 (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:Football (soccer) strikers

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. Kbdank71 16:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Football (soccer) strikers to Category:Football (soccer) forwards
Nominator's rationale: Merge – Following the requested move of Striker to Forward (association football), it stands to reason that Category:Football (soccer) forwards should now be the more populous category. Ideally, Category:Football (soccer) strikers would remain as a subcategory. However, this may not be possible, as many articles have been miscategorised under that category, so its contents should be merged into Category:Football (soccer) forwards, and Category:Football (soccer) strikers should be deleted. – PeeJay 00:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – PeeJay 00:55, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the nom. To much work involved in keeping the separate lists accurate Mayumashu (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Association football forwards as the article is at Association football, not Football (soccer). -- MISTER ALCOHOL T C 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, that is not an option, as it would require the renaming of all categories that use the term "Football (soccer)", which was rejected at CfD only a couple of months ago. Can I assume that you support the merger though? – PeeJay 09:54, 8 January 2009 (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/2009_January_2&oldid=1140543140"