Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 24

< December 23 December 25 >

December 24

Category:Lists of Summer Olympic medalists by sport

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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary "by sport" modifier, as these are the only categories for lists of Summer/Winter Olympic medallists. Once renamed, the "by sport" parent can then be upmerged to remove an unnecessary layer of categorisation. SFB 19:52, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – and then the 'by-year' lists in Category:Lists of Olympic medalists should be moved to the new subcats, leaving the lists which are not specific to the summer or winter games. Oculi (talk) 20:02, 24 December 2014 (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:Big City Network

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) 00:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Big City Network became Bauer Place in 2011 and has since been renamed to Bauer City. Bbb2007 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page refers to the two separate networks, Bauer City and Bauer National. The Bauer City stations share programming between them and are available regionally, whereas the Bauer National stations have separate programming for each station and are all available nationally. Therefore I think the renamed Big City Network category would be fine on its own, with all other Bauer National stations kept in the main Bauer Radio category. Bbb2007 (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support At some point, it may make sense to split Bauer City & National into two articles, but that's an issue for the article space. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:36, 26 December 2014 (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.

Companies by Texas City - 11 Small Categories

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 as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All of these articles contain 1 or 2 articles and are of little navigation value. Their parent city category is--in every instance--very small so these articles will still be easy to find for anyone interested in each town. I don't think these categories have much room for growth but no objection to recreating any of them later if more articles appear. There is no universal scheme to sub-categorize all companies by city. This is a follow-up to the successful Category:Companies based in Gainesville, Texas upmerge nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas. – RevelationDirect (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to Closing Admin The categories marked with an asterisk (*) already have some articles in sub-categories of the Category:Companies based in Texas tree so articles will need to be manually moved if this nomination is successful. I'm happy to do that work if needed. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2014 (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:Canadian television comedians

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; merge contents to Category:Canadian television personalities and Category:Canadian comedians. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Canadian television comedians to Category:Both parent categories
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Television comedians or Category:Television comedians by nationality (e.g. no Category:American television comedians or Category:British television comedians). If this is kept, then we should create that scheme to diffuse Category:Comedians by nationality and Category:Television personalities by nationality). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, this is a subcategorization scheme that should exist, precisely because a television sketch comedian is inherently a very different thing than a stand-up comedian, so a "comedians" category needs subcatting to clarify — and the "television personalities" parent is also an excessively broad descriptor that encompasses a lot of different types of television roles which need to be subcatted beyond just the generic "television personalities". I'm not wedded to this particular name for it, but it is a scheme that should exist. Keep (with renaming if useful). Update: I've created and populated Category:Canadian sketch comedians as a subcategory of SFB's new Category:Sketch comedians category. The new category esssentially serves the purpose that this category was originally intended for, while fixing the naming problem that people have raised here. Accordingly, go ahead and delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:15, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I disagree with Bearcat in that I don't think there is a clear distinction between comedians on television and those who aren't. Stand-up comedy is a common form of television comedy. The television element has had a profound impact on stand-up from Richard Pryor onwards. I don't think "television comedian" is even easily distinguished from other forms such as comedy writing (as many will write for television). SFB 20:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that stand-up comedy and television were two different things — I said that stand-up comedy and sketch comedy are two different things. Maybe this isn't the best name for a category for television sketch comedians, which is why I proffered the possibility of renaming — but we do need to categorize stand-up comedians as a separate thing from sketch comedians, because sketch and stand-up are not interchangeable domains of comedy. Most practitioners of one form never even attempt the other one, and the few that do can be categorized as both without causing a significant WP:OC#OVERLAP problem since they're so few and far between. Bearcat (talk) 01:40, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: The creation of Category:Sketch comedians is a very good idea indeed, and should flesh out what has already been started at Category:Sketch comedy troupes. I've made a start. Sketch comedy is found on multiple media though, so doesn't really address the television element of the nomination. SFB 02:41, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support comedians on tv, in movies, on stage do virtually the same thing (and most do all three) - reminds me of the arguments over clay-court tennis players, grass-court tennis players long ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 29 December 2014 (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.

Private companies by township

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 as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small (1 and 5) subcategories that don't help navigation. Likely another example of driving a good concept too far down the tree. Note that one upmerge target is not a parent in the current setup but is much better for navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Both The current structure is too choppy and would hinder navigation. Both of these changes seem reasonable. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2014 (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:Left-footed association football players

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--Ymblanter (talk) 21:46, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Left-footed association football players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Not a notable or defining characteristic of a player. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:30, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator's reasoning. LRD 15:43, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. I fail to see how this is notable. Mattythewhite (talk) 15:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The footedness of a player has a profound effect upon both their positioning in the team and the effectiveness of their technique against other players. The topic of footedness in football that has been the study of academics[1], a consideration of coaches[2][3] and a frequent feature used to describe players in the sporting press.[4][5][6]. The latter point specifically refutes the nominators logic that is a WP:NON-DEFINING attribute, because (to paraphrase that guideline) it is "a characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having". That is also the reason why all the players in this category have specific citations to verify that fact. It is a commonly referred to and defining attribute of football players (cf. Category:Southpaw boxers). SFB 16:26, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The footedness of a player doesn't have any major effect on their positioning in the team, nor the "effectiveness of their technique" (switching from one foot to the other is all that changes). Most articles don't even mention what foot the player uses, and indeed, it's often hard to reliably source that anyway. Academic studies only give notability to the topic of left/right footedness, not to whether it is notable for an individual player. Nor does some people on the Guardian who have run out of things to write about on their blog generate any notability. Very few players are truly single-footed anyway, nowadays. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:35, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Lukeno94: So the New York Times, the Guardian, and Four Four Two (the foremost British publication on football) are not reliable enough sources? What about Marca, ESPN and the Associated Press? Let alone the whole of the internet?[7] What kind of "reliable source" about football would satisfy you here? A divine one? Even Britannica thinks footedness worthy of a lead mention. SFB 16:53, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Guardian stuff is from their blogs, which means that they're just trying to fill up their space with something vaguely relevant. The whole point is that being left-footed is not a defining characteristic for a player, nor is it notable for 99% of players. You keep giving sources that give notability to the topic, not the category. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:56, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not from their blogs – it's the content that is published in their football section of the paper – nationally published material in one of the country's best selling serious newspapers. As for the relevance of the topic to individual players, please see the above Britannica link clearly defining Messi as a left-footed player and citations in everyone one of the so-far categorised players that discuss this matter. See the New York Times addressing this topic directly with Arjen Robben. See the national union of US players directly discussing the relevance of footedness to team make-up. See Manchester United manager Louis van Gaal in the Independent (another serious broadsheet) discussing the importance of footedness to his team selection. See the Times discuss the relevance of England players' footedness in their sports supplement. As I said before, what would you consider a reliable source? Far from this element being "hard to reliably source" I've just done that for dozens of players in a short period of time. SFB 17:17, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not sure what this category really means. Does it mean they can only play with their left-foot? If it does I would like to see some references for the players added, that they only use their left. It's all too vague. FWIW Stewart Downing also scores with his right and his manager says it is incorrect to think of him all "all left".--Egghead06 (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being non-defining and trivial. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lugnuts: If it's trivial, then why do left-footed players have an earning premium over right-footed players? Companies do not pay additional salary for trivial features. SFB 20:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't know - because they're idiots? Your guess is as good as mine. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a defining category Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I think it is a defining characteristic for some players (eg any decent account of Messi, Maradona, Puskas will refer to their ability with the left foot). Having said this I think categories for left handed cricketers and tennis players (where handedness is similarly defining IMO) have been deleted despite my support, and also baseball players (but I can't find the discussions). Oculi (talk) 19:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not a defining characteristic. JMHamo (talk) 00:13, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The thing with the likes of Messi, Maradona and Puskas (whose footedness is genuinely notable as there's a backstory to it) is that every little thing about them has been detailed, because they're so famous. In Messi's case, you could probably find out each type of boot he has used if you looked hard enough in the right places. As such, that doesn't make the footedness in most cases anything more than just more trivia (with Puskas being one arguable exception). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's true that those footballers have had lots of coverage, but the footedness of even people like Andy Reid[8] and Matt Grimes[9] can be sourced. Those players are barely known beyond their lower leagues, so it's clearly an element that goes beyond superstar trivia. Again, it took me two minutes to find those sources. SFB 20:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duff argument on Andy Reid's case; yes, he's no Messi, but he's also a player whom played in the Premier League for many years... and that's a primary source you linked to right there, not to mention routine. Grimes is, of course, nowhere near as notable or successful as of right now, but "left-footed midfielder" isn't exactly the sort of in-depth coverage one needs for this to be a defining characteristic. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 10:22, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per arguments above and because it was previously deleted under a slightly different name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete footedness is not notable distinction for football players. Is anyone known as a left-footed football player but not a football player??? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If this was a defining characteristic for all footballers, then the information would be readily available about which foot players use. It isn't. – PeeJay 00:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic. GiantSnowman 13:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete footedness and handedness are characteristics we long ago decided were trivial and not to be categorized by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic and too vague of a category. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unnecessary diffusion of category by handedness. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:11, 10 February 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:People of French-Canadian descent

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 for the initial request. This close does not attempt to address the delete arguments which can be raised in another discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:33, 6 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While French is an ethnicity, Canadian is only a nationality (unless referring to tribes like Inuit, Métis, or Algonquin). Therefore, this category and its subcategories are misleading as they incorrectly suggest that Canadian is an ethnicity and/or that Canadian citizens with fully French heritage are ethnically different than people living elsewhere that have fully French heritage. Therefore, this and its subcategories should be merged. Snuggums (talk / edits) 14:51, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The part that's been overlooked, though, is that French Canadians are simply people with French ancestry and Canadian citizenship. Snuggums (talk / edits) 15:08, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think they've evolved into an ethno-linguistic group? RevelationDirect (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wouldn't call them that, especially since not all of them even speak French regularly. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:22, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The articles in Category:French Canadian culture suggest otherwise to me.RevelationDirect (talk) 20:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It is now 250 years since Wolfe stormed the Heights of Abraham, leading to Quebec becoming a British colony. That is quite long enough for them to become a separate ethnicity to my mind. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember that nationality ≠ ethnicity. A Canadian citizen with 100% heritage (aka ethnicity) is not ethnically different from other people living in separate areas that have 100% heritage. Therefore, this category is misleading. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:38, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SNUGGUMS: The nominated category does not state that "French Canadian" is an ethnic or national signifier, so the category name is not misleading in this respect. It is the current parent category's naming that is doing the misleading. SFB 20:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The parent category is quite flawed, that's for sure. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:04, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "French Canadian" is a legitimate ethnic group unto itself. In any case, these categories of descent are not always either/or ethnic or national—it's possible to have more complicated combinations of both that form distinct groups. In any case #2, it doesn't make sense to merge this category while keeping the well-populated subcategories, such as Category:American people of French-Canadian descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also stated that the subcategories are misleading as well, though perhaps should have been more explicit at first in saying they should also be merged. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unmaintainable ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and - most particularly - delete the American, British and Honduran child categories. After all, when discussing descent, it's not relevant whether there is a French-Canadian ethnicity in general, it's merely relevant whether there is a French-Canadian community or culture in the United States (or UK, or Honduras). And frankly I don't think there's enough evidence for that. Please note that French Canadian culture redirects to Culture of Quebec while there is nothing in this article about expatriate French Canadian culture. Also note that Category:French-Canadian culture in the United States mostly contains historical items about French colonization in the US rather than about ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subcategories have neither been tagged for deletion nor listed here so they can't be deleted as a result of this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're right, though I would still propose to delete the nominated category for this same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this and all other "descent" categories. Categorizing someone by their ethnicity/nationality is fine, but not by the ethnicity/nationality of (each of) their great grandparents. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There was a very defined wave of "French-Candian" immigrantion to the United States (especially Rhode Island and other parts of New England) just over a century ago. There have been books written about French-Canadian Americans. This is clearly an accepted ethnic group. The fact of the matter is that it is not that they have French ancestry, but French culture. I have a friend who is a French-Candian American (he didn't speak English until he was about 7, but was born in the US) who has almost as much Spanish ancestry as French. It is about culture. They don't trace back to France, but to the French Canadian culture.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment some of these people will have been born over 300 years after their last ancestor left France, but less than 25 after their last ancestor left Canada. Additionally some sources insist that even among the core Quebecois population there is more Native American ancestry than acknoleged. This was explored in an article I read in a book on the fur trade in North America published at most a decade ago by a university press. It seems the founding mothers of the Quebecois became culturally French more so than the founding mothers of the Metis, and there were more French women even early on, but there seems to have been high levels of intermarriage with Native women, so to say these people are "of Frnech descent" misses more than it reveals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Any decision of this page will be incomplete, because not all daughter categories have been nominated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The article on Marcheline Bertrand gives us a glimpse of why French-Canadian is not French.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep French-Canadian culture is unique and distinct. Many people of French-Canadian descent consider themselves French-Canadian and not Canadian. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Culture is NOT the same thing as heritage Snuggums (talk / edits) 20:25, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
True but French-Canadian culture is notable enough in my opinion to keep this category. Make of it what you will.Inter&anthro (talk) 03:24, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and oppose the merge - per several above. - jc37 05:20, 9 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24&oldid=1138399108"