Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 17



Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami, Florida

 * 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 16:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Greater Miami, Florida to Category:Visitor attractions in Miami-Dade County, Florida
 * Nominator's rationale: I made an error in this nomination. This is the only use of "Greater Miami" here, so I suggest making it about the County since Miami and its county government are so intertwined.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support rename The use of "Greater Miami" seems rather limited, and there do not appear to be any attractions here situated outside of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The proposed title provides a name more consistent with other such categories. Alansohn (talk) 03:33, 19 April 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.

SMSAs

 * 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 two and split one--Aervanath (talk) 07:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in the Charlotte, North Carolina area to Category:Radio stations in the Charlotte metropolitan area
 * Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area to Category:Radio stations in the Milwaukee metropolitan area
 * Propose renaming Category:Churches in Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota to Category:Churches in Minneapolis-St. Paul (or manually split between Category:Churches in Minneapolis, Minnesota and Category:Churches in St. Paul, Minnesota)
 * Nominator's rationale: In the mass renames of "City" to "City, State" categories, we haven't been giving SMSAs state names. In the latter category, I had that renamed incorrectly in this nomination; I can see breaking that category up as well, and in that case it would need the state name.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Radio stations in the Charlotte, North Carolina area to Category:Radio stations in the Charlotte metropolitan area. There is an article for Charlotte metropolitan area and no article for Charlotte area. In addition, Charlotte happens to be ambiguous as a place name so the proposed category would be ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. I changed both to be "metropolitan area." There are probably a few others that could use this adjustment.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support, except oppose Charlotte The names should match the titles of the parent articles. Milwaukee and Minneapolis have been set by policy as NOT including a state. Charlotte, North Carolina is not included in the U.S. cities that do not obey this rule. Alansohn (talk) 01:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to closer. I think that this comment was prior to the change in the nomination when the city, state form was being proposed.  It was changed after this position was made and now that these are for metropolitan areas, this oppose for Charlotte may not be an issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:59, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support the current nomination with the split for the churches. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:24, 19 April 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:Pre-Tertiary Education in Greater St. Louis

 * 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. Kbdank71 16:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose upmerging Category:Pre-Tertiary Education in Greater St. Louis to Category:Education in Greater St. Louis
 * Nominator's rationale: Most schools categories are part of their area's Education categories, and don't use this awkward middleman.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:56, 17 April 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:Ovation Award winners and nominees

 * 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 16:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Ovation Award winners and nominees to Category:Ovation Award winners
 * Nominator's rationale: Either rename to Category:Ovation Award winners and purge of nominees since we don't categorize nominees or delete as a non-defining local award. Otto4711 (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete / Rename if kept As currently worded, OCAT limits awards to those such as "Category:Nobel laureates and Category:Academy Award winners", an arbitrarily-high standard that is not evidenced by recent closes on these awards. What should be included are national awards and those granted locally that receive national recognition. The Ovation Awards are described as "a Southern California award for excellence in theatre", and from what I see receive limited coverage outside Southern California. I couldn't find a single mention of the award in The New York Times or other East Coast publications. While most of the articles in this category do mention the receipt of Ovation Awards, all of them seem to be rather far down in the article. Grouping productions and actors in a single Category:Ovation Award winners and nominees seems to lump too much together and adds little to navigation. Under the existing Wikipedia:OCAT#Award recipients standard (which seems to be unobserved by consensus) there would hardly any award categories, certainly not this one. Under this proposed rewrite of the standard, which seems to more clearly reflect reality, this category would be deleted as well. Alansohn (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete -- this is the usual solution for minor awards. A list is better because it should place the winners in date order.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 20 April 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:Organizations by country

 * 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: '''Nothing was tagged for nomination, but from the discussion it is apparent that there is no consensus to standardiZ/Se the spelling across all categories, and probably a consensus to keep things as they are. If any particular category name is thought to be inappropriately spelled, it would probably be best treated with an individual nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Spelling inconsistency in the sub categories by country Category:Organizations by country. Organizations or organisations? Which should correctly be used? I'd probably support Organizations seems as the parent category is named this way. They should definately be consistent though. Dr. Blofeld       White cat 15:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:ENGVAR as a US/UK spelling issue. Tim! (talk) 16:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Remark – I would say it should follow the 'z' of Category:Organizations until it becomes wrong. So Category:Organisations by country and city should be 'z'. But it should be 's' for Category:Organisations based in Australia and all its subcats. I have no idea what should be done for say Albania ... 'z' would seem logical unless Albanians have other views. (Nothing is tagged.) Occuli (talk) 16:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Standard procedure is to use UK spelling for other European countries, since the only English-speaking countries to use US spelling are in the western hemisphere. So the Albanian one should be "organisations". The overall one, and any for use as a worldwide over-category, can easily remain "organizations" however. Grutness...wha?  01:37, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Grutness: I cannot find mention of this in WP:ENGVAR. Is there a guideline or policy on this? For instance, in Norway it is just as common to write US English as UK English. There is no "official" English spelling in the country, both are taught in the schools and despite pre-19th century historical ties to the UK, most popular culture comes from the US. Arsenikk (talk)  15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Leave it per both, unless any are contrary to local use. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment doesn't the OED prescribe using "z"? 70.29.213.241 (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * See Oxford spelling. That can't be used as an excuse to -ize everything. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a British spelling, used in Britain, and would also match Canadian and US spellings. 76.66.196.218 (talk) 05:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose This is a classic ENGVAR case. Alansohn (talk) 01:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as is - "z" for Americans "s" for British and (most) Commonwealth, according the the speeling usual in each country. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:ENGVAR. Arsenikk (talk)  15:08, 22 April 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:Knuckleball pitchers

 * 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 and Delete - And since the list already exists, this can be deleted. In weighing the arguments, the ones that carried the most weight were the note that this would be better presented in a navbox and/or a list (even several who weren't opposed to keeping suggested this as an option), and the comments that this is similar to other types of OCAT, such as performers by performance. The latter argument indicating that this is not a case where a category  should co-exist with a list and/or navbox. Editors should, of course, feel free to create such a navbox at editorial discretion. - jc37 12:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * knuckleball pitchers


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is the only category that adresses those who are known to throw a particular baseball pitch. I am of the opinion that knuckleball pitchers can be notable, but does it need a category?  I say that a collection of famous knuckleball pitchers can be listed.  Or... categories for all the other pitches would need to be created for consistency. Neonblak  talk  -  05:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - It's certainly true that knuckleballers are a rare breed, but I'm not sure a category makes good sense. I think probably a navbox template is the right way to go for this. Cgingold (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - The information about pitchers known to throw the knuckleball is of encyclopedic interest, but it can be (and apparently already is) included in Knuckleball. No additional value is derived from also having a category for these pitchers. --Orlady (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete pitcher by pitch? no...OCAT. Little different that Category:Clay court tennis players or Category:Filly jockeys or some other division of a sportsperson by type of sports preference or technique. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's a false analog, since neither clay courts nor fillies are rare. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and also build a list, knuckeball is a rather rare and hard to use pitch. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - variant of performer by performance overcategorization. Similar to the deleted left-handed athletes, actors who played particular roles and the like. Otto4711 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibly keep not my field, but I though particular pitchers were particularly and perhaps primarily known for this? DGG (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. A variation of performer by performance. We don't categorize actors by films, so why in the world would be categorize baseball pitchers by pitch? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 12:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This was not tagged for deletion, so this is being relisted. For a well-sourced list of what was in the category, see User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers.  --Kbdank71 12:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn's excellent list, which establishes to my satisfaction (as one who knows nothing about baseball) that this is a defining characteristic for a pitcher. (It is stretching 'performance by performer' - or indeed 'performer by performance' - beyond breaking point to apply it here; also the article Knuckleball only includes a handful of practitioners.) Occuli (talk) 13:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Not only is the knuckleball a rare pitch and one difficult to throw properly, it often requires the team employing the pitcher who throws one to make specific adjustments to their personnel and their equipment. There are catchers out there who are, or have been, known for their ability to catch a knuckleball (Doug Mirabelli is a recent example). This certifies it to my mind as a characteristic much more defining than simply being left-handed. -Dewelar (talk) 13:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I had seen the CfD the morning it was closed and not had a chance to consider the nomination and gather information about the definingness of the category. The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers by Rob Neyer lists some 80 pitchers who used the knuckleball as their primary pitch out of the thousands of pitchers who have pitched in Major League Baseball. Of the two dozen articles in the category before its premature deletion, all but three were described primarily in their articles as knuckleball pitchers and all had sources that described them as knuckleballers or knuckleball pitchers, and the overwhelming majority had as many as hundreds of sources describing them as knuckleballers. The obituaries of several of these individuals include the pitch in the title of the articles, such as for Jesse Haines ("Jesse Haines, Pitcher, Dies at 85; Hall of Famer Won 210 Games; Known for Knuckleball") and Joe Niekro ("Joe Niekro, a Master of the Knuckleball, Is Dead at 61"), while Phil Niekro's plaque at the Baseball Hall of Fame defines him as a "Preeminent knuckleball pitcher" (see here). Knuckleball pitchers are not only described as such, but someone who throws the knuckleball is often considered a bit quirky; Jim Bouton's seminal tell-all Ball Four is subtitled My Life and Hard Times Throwing the Knuckleball in the Big Leagues. These individuals are not just baseball players or pitchers; They are strongly defined as knuckleball pitchers. I invite anyone interested in a start on the few dozen sources I was able to find in a brief search and a link to articles to review User:Alansohn/Knuckleball pitchers. The category should not include all pitchers who have ever thrown a knuckleball, as stated in Neyer's book, the category should focus on those "who would not have been in the majors without his knuckleball, or whose knuckleball was considered his best pitch, at least for a time." Alansohn (talk) 14:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having read the above information, and knowing the things I know about knuckleball pitchers, this is definitely a category worthy of existence. Many knuckleballers are known simply as that name: primarily by their pitch, rather than the fact that they are pitchers (of course, the same can be said for some sinkerballers too). KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 16:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Due to the effort required to master the knuckleball, a pitcher who relies on it typically throws almost entirely knuckleballs, and as such it is a defining characteristic of the player. The category should be reserved for players who do rely entirely on the knuckleball, and not pitchers who might throw the occasionally knuckler in their mix. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notwithstanding my suggestion re using a navbox, I would have no problem with keeping this as a Category. Not only are these guys a "rare breed" (as I said above), their use in a game presents special problems for catchers, as well as opportunities for baserunners, due to the impossibility of predicting the flight paths of their pitches. (Forty-plus years later, I still have vivid memories of radio broadcaster Vin Scully's word pictures of these pitches "dancing around like a butterfly". :) Cgingold (talk) 19:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - After reading all the comments on this subject, trying to "define" a defining characteristic when referring to pitchers who are primarily known for throwing a particular pitch is still not very clear.
 * 1. Under the definition above: pitchers who throw just one pitch predominately, a pitch that is hard to master, and is only thrown by a select few pitchers, are the defining characteristics. Even if read strictly, do only knuckballs fall under that umbrella?
 * 2. If read "liberally", all pitches are hard to master, and more than a select few pitchers are defined by the types of pitches they throw, i.e. Nolan Ryan (fastball), Bert Blyleven (curveball), Bruce Sutter (split-finger), Orel Hershisher (sinker) just to name a few.
 * 3. Many pre-1900 pitchers didn't throw any other pitches beside a fastball, but only a select few were defined by that pitch, i.e. Matt Kilroy. After 1900 example, Walter Johnson threw only fastballs.
 * 4. If hall-of-fame plaques are taken into account, Nolan Ryan's "overpowering fastball", Amos Rusie's "fireball king", Walter Johnson's "fastest ball pitcher in history", Goose Gossage's "exploding fastball", etc. are under the umbrella. Candy Cummings is in the hall just because he supposedly invented the curveball, not for being a particularly great pitcher, but one thing seems clear to me, that all these pitchers are defined by the pitch that they primarily threw.
 * 5. So, in conclusion, I say Delete but keep the list or Keep and created the other pitch categories. Neonblak talk  -  20:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem of course being that once the categories are created there is no reasonable way to limit their contents. Any pitcher who ever threw a knuckle ball will be catted as a knuckleballer, everyone who ever threw a curveball as a curveballer and so on. Sportspeople in particular tend to pick up a lot of categories and every one added for something like "he threw a certain pitch" or "he batted left-handed" or he hit 600 home runs or was in the 30-30 club or 40-40 club or whatever other arbitrary grouping baseball fans throw together makes the overall categorization scheme more cluttered and less useful. Otto4711 (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The dreaded slippery slope, a flaw that is a systemic problem of the category system, not of this particular category. To provide a counterexample, how do we manage to limit the addition of programs to Category:LGBT-related television episodes, which passed near unanimously at CfD with your participation just a few months ago at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 November 18, and which has inclusion criteria far more muddled than this one could ever be, including "episodes of television series that are not generally about LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender)-related issues that substantially cover such issues"? How do we know a show is generally not LGBT-related? How do we know an episode "substantially cover[s]" these issues? How do we manage to control this category -- including only those episodes that meet the squishily-defined criteria and carefully excluding all that don't -- here and in whatever other arbitrary grouping LGBT fans throw together that makes the overall categorization scheme uncluttered and more useful (a sentence that I could only write by paraphrasing yours)? How is it that it works successfully there, but that you believe that it simply can never work here? Any guidance you can offer on how we can manage to keep Category:LGBT-related television episodes in control will be most helpful in implementing the exact same slippery slope prevention program here. Applying an objective standard for addressing the slippery slope issue in consistent fashion across all categories will help dispel the notion that this is just an arbitrary popularity contest. Alansohn (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to re-nominate the LGBT eps category, feel free. Of course you won't, because you would much rather have it around to drag out in one unrelated CFD after another in hopes that someday someone will pay attention to you instead of actually taking action to improve the category system. You're not actually interested in the overall system; you're only interested in opportunistically imposing your views. Otto4711 (talk) 14:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if you had not nominated the LGBT-related category for deletion, I would not have, as the decision there is so clearcut as to allowing subjectivity and ignoring a lack of slippery slope prevention. While you will often disagree with me on interpretation of policy, I have been rather consistent in attempting to develop an overall structure in which categories that aid navigation for readers are retained, and have done my best to apply these standards in a consistent fashion across all categories. As both you and I agreed with the resounding consensus set with Category:LGBT-related television episodes, I find it extremely difficult to understand why that one should be kept and this one shouldn't under any possible consistent interpretation of Wikipedia policy on categories. The question is not why I'm not starting a CfD for the Category:LGBT-related television episodes (I didn't want it deleted before and I don't know), it's why you would be so vehemently opposed to this one while so active in support of Category:LGBT-related television episodes. Any guidance you could offer us here on a consistent reading of policy that could be applied across the board to all categories would be appreciated. Alansohn (talk) 01:42, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Keep - per the reasons described so well by Alansohn. Throwing the knuckleball is a defining characteristic for the few pitchers who master it, and no other baseball pitch is really like that. Yes, some pitchers are known for the fastball or curve or sinker, but it's almost always part of a reportoire, whereas most knuckleball pitchers rely on it almost exclusively. And if the contents need to be limited (for example, to avoid including pitchers who only experimented with the pitch), a note at the top of the Category page should work. In addition to the sources that Alansohn listed, I'll mention a chapter on the history of knuckleball pitchers in Craig Wright's The Diamond Appraised. BRMo (talk) 01:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In addition to what I've already said (I'll try not to repeat debate points), I can see the points raised on both sides, the one sticking point with me is the appearance that Knuckballs are somehow more special because they are the most difficult pitch to master. That doesn't mean a mastered knuckleball is more effective than an average, but well placed, fastball.  I can concede that trying to manage a fastball, curve, slider category can be difficult to manage because of subjectivity.  There is one pitch that does seem to qualify under all the above requirements, the spitball was used as the primary pitch for a select few pitchers who mastered it, and there is a finite amount of pitchers who legally threw it, because it has been illegal for what 80+ years? And a disclaimer could also be placed at the top of category page, defining it so that it keeps the Gaylord Perry's out. Neonblak  talk  -  13:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Pitchers who would be defined as knuckleballers are those who throw nearly 100% knuckleballs, which is virtually without parallel for pitchers who do not rely on the knuckleball (and who do more than make a brief coffee stop in the majors). In today's game, Mariano Rivera is an example of someone who throws nothing but cut fastballs to lefties, but he throws other pitches to righties. Now that Pitch F/X data is available, what a pitcher throws can be categorized quantitatively, so clear defining lines can be drawn. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:50, 18 April 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:Quotes
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

quotes
 * Rename to Category:Quotations, as that is the proper term -- "Quotes" is a shorthand term. The target already exists, having been created as a redirect; I suppose Category:Quotes should be left as a redirect instead of deleting it outright.  Cgingold (talk) 04:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom & main article. Johnbod (talk) 21:33, 17 April 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:Songs criticizing George W. Bush administration
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Songs criticizing George W. Bush administration to Category:Songs criticizing the George W. Bush administration
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Grammar. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - the same song can criticize any number of things, which could lead to any number of such categories on the same song. Variation of categorizing on the basis of opinion or belief since (presumably) the songwriters are themselves anti-Bush. We wouldn't have Category:Songwriters critical of the George W. Bush administration and shouldn't backdoor it here. Otto4711 (talk) 17:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I would be in favor of deletion as well, but barring that, rename. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:20, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Otto4711. Bearcat (talk) 06:02, 19 April 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:Moscow events
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 16:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Moscow events to Category:Events in Moscow
 * Nominator's rationale: To match other categories found in Category:Events by country, etc Russavia Dialogue 02:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. - 7-bubёn >t 00:38, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Sensible QueenCake (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Support rename to match other similar categories. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 20 April 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:Microstates
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 both - They violate an even more clear rule of categorisation. If there is no verifiable reliable source then there should be no categorisation. Neither article indicates actual usage of the term. (And after looking over some links on the talk pages, it's starting to look like this may actually fall afoul of WP:NEO, and apparently, WP:OR.) In any case, if some geographic authority (some reliable source) is found which labels these this term, then feel free to WP:DRV in order to allow for assessment of the references, and consensus for eventual restoration. (Per guidelines at DRV concerning "new information".) But until such is found, this would seem to fall under WP:OR, WP:NEO, and, most importantly WP:V. - jc37 12:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * microstates


 * european microstates


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. It is a POV and ultimately an arbitrary decision to classify any particular state as a "microstate". The articles Microstate and European microstates make this abundantly clear. Microstate defines the term as "a sovereign state having a very small population or very small land area, but usually both". European microstates mentions several states that are "usually" included, then mentions 3 others that "share certain features as well". How small do either population or land area (or both) have to be to be included in the category? The words "very" and "usually" in the article discussions are tip-offs that this is not amendable to categorization. Any cut-off will be arbitrary, as there is no "official list" of microstates. The articles take the correct approach by listing small states which are sometimes considered to be microstates. This is all we can do, really. See WP:OC. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep both to correspond to their parent articles. As with all categories in Wikipedia, the inclusion criteria is based on reference to reliable and verifiable sources. That the inclusion criteria are not based on a hard and fast definition or that there is no "official list" has never been a valid criteria for deletion, nor has it been required for Category:Fictional bartenders or Category:LGBT-related television episodes, which describes its inclusion criteria in terms far vaguer than used here. Alansohn (talk) 03:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:CLN (which I believe you're aware of) says, "Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category". Since inclusion here would rely solely on sources, it would never be "self-evident" that an article belongs in the category. Thus, a list would be preferable to a category in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You can feel free to cut the patronizing bit and make an effort to act civilly. I looked at the entries in the category and find every one to be self-evident. I wouldn't quibble with any of the entries, nor are there any microstates that appear missing. From looking at the category I know why all of the entries are included, something I couldn't possibly state for Category:LGBT-related television episodes. If there is any controversy about microstate status, I have yet to see it. Alansohn (talk) 14:15, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The point was that it is a subjective determination, which you've demonstrated. No incivility was intended. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no objectivity standard for categories. It would limit the scope of the category system significantly, but we somehow manage to have Category:LGBT-related television episodes which has inclusion standards that are completely subjective. As to your prior remarks, I'm not sure what you were trying to imply, but I think you would acknowledge that you know full well that I am fully aware of WP:CLN and that your statement "which I believe you're aware of" offers nothing about WP:CLN other than incivility. I would hope that you would apply policy on civility on a more consistent basis. Alansohn (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading things into my comments that aren't there. I said I believed you are aware of it because I've seen that you like to quote it and it seems to be a popular guideline with you, so I was just highlighting the fact that this statement came from that same guideline. No incivility was intended, so you may want to take my word on that as a means of assuming good faith. Objectivity is a standard for categories, if by objectivity we mean non-arbitrary. If we're selecting a specific cut-off line (or adopting someone's else's) it's arbitrary: see WP:OC. Why cut it off at 300,000 people rather than 400,000? Because it's an arbitrary decision. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I have seen articles throughout the years on the subject, but a definition like the one used in the 1976 article "The behavior of the ministates in the United Nations, 1971–1972" in the peer-reviewed journal International Organization, which discusses 23 of what it calls "ministates", defined as those with a population less than one million, would be useful, as would the 2006 book "Small states in international relations". In 1967, United Nations Secretary General U Thant raised the issue that "a line has to be drawn somewhere" on microstates (see "THANT ASKS LIMIT ON 'MICROSTATES'; Sees Threat to Organization in Full U.N. Membership for All Small Nations THANT ASKS LIMIT ON 'MICROSTATES'"). A 1977 op-ed in The New York Times by Elmer Plischke posits a line at 300,000 (see "As If the Super Bowl Were in the U.N."). I would propose using a standard of including those nations described as a "ministate" or as a "microstate" in reliable and verifiable sources, to comply with WP:CAT's stricture that "An article should be placed in all the categories to which it logically belongs, subject to the duplicate categorization rule stated below. It should be clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories". This standard would be far more objective than the utterly subjective one used for Category:LGBT-related television episodes. Alansohn (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem to me seems to be that the sources are choosing to "draw a line somewhere", which makes it an arbitrary classification, regardless of where they choose to draw the line. Honestly, I've no idea why Category:LGBT-related television episodes is relevant to this discussion. It may be an example of another problematic category, but not really that directly relevant here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As one who actively organizes the taxonomy of CfDs and uses these precedents on a rather frequent basis (most often as part of an argument for deleting based on precedent), Category:LGBT-related television episodes set a rather important precedent in which the issue of complete subjectivity was raised and decidedly ignored as an argument for deletion. Alansohn (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and like any lawyer worth his salt I am able to sift the wheat from the chaff in analyzing case law. The decision to keep the category hardly stands as a "precedent" for all that you claim it could. But even if it did, it would seem to be an anomaly more than anything else. You need more than one instance for a very strong precedent, and the principles you claim it stands for are contradicted by many statements in the guidelines and by dozens of other cases, so all in all it's not terribly relevant. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The phrase "worth his salt" is telling, as Pliny the Elder cites the use of salt to pay the wages of Roman soldiers as the derivation for the word that has come to us as "salary". All the lawyers I know recognize that case law and precedent have nothing to do with wheat or chaff, but have a great deal to do with which side you're arguing and who is paying the bills or their salary. As we have little money flowing through here, it appears that personal preference plays a greater role than policy. I have attempted to craft a pattern of voting under which I support the continued existence of categories that aid navigation across similar articles for readers and vote to delete those that don't, which is why I believe that this category, as well as both Category:LGBT-related television episodes and Category:Knuckleball pitchers, should be retained. I have asked Otto for a consistent theory as to why he voted to keep the far more subjective Category:LGBT-related television episodes (which I also support), but delete the other two, which triggered the administratively-ignored outburst of incivility below. Can you offer a justification for objectively determining when results are an "anomaly" and can be ignored as being "not terribly relevant"? Can you offer a consistent explanation under your theory of categories to explain the results at the CfDs in question? Can you explain why the justification for my vote is so wrong that you have needed to respond several times to my vote, carefully pointing out policies that you know I am fully aware of, when I have offered a clear explanation and multiple sources to support my position and it is clear that I am unswayed by your repeated arguments? Alansohn (talk) 14:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'm an academic lawyer, so I don't have "sides" to argue on behalf of. The anomalous nature of the case is indicated by the substantial number of cases that contradict it, coupled with the guidelines that contradict it. I see I'm repeating myself here ... I'm not trying to convince you, Alansohn, in "responding" to your comments, and I'm not doing it for your benefit. It's not important to me whether or not you even read them or think about them. I realise that "convincing" you may be futile, and that is not my goal. I'm responding to them to get onto the record objections to your reasoning, so they may be considered by a closer. That's pretty much why I make comments at CfD. If anyone is responding to another user just to score "points" somehow in some other sense, they need to get a life. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * But you do have sides you argue on behalf of. You take positions on your own behalf in many CfDs and pass judgment on others. If you're playing to the crowd or the closing administrator, why bother responding to me, and why use the word "you" so frequently to respond directly to stances I take. Why not just add a comment or (even better) try file a far more thorough brief when you submit your case that anticipates the likely responses. Any attorney worth his salt would have a strong acquaintance with the motions that the opposing side will be filing and the case they'll be making. I will also point out that my additional comments often provide additional evidence, which has been shown to actually sway voters and closing admins; repeating the same arguments repeatedly in response to my comments will do little to sway me or anyone other than the most doe-eyed newbie. As you come from an academic background, I am still surprised by the lack of any discernible theory of law to cover the discrepant stances taken on various cases and all those that appear to have wildly discrepant results, and you can't brush all of them off as anomalies. And any explanation on why Otto's blatant incivility is routinely overlooked would also be appreciated. I would assume that telling another editor to "shut up" falls under uncivil under all theories of incivility, and that's just him warming up. Alansohn (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your questions/inquiries/comments/allegations in turn: (1) I was referring to my work in law, not my work in WP. (2) because it's easier that way and makes more sense in context; (3) same as (2). This isn't a court case, after all, nor do I intend to treat it like one; (4) this is not really the place to discuss my "discernible theory of law"; even if it were, it's possible it may not make sense to you, unless you've studied law or otherwise done a bit of reading on the theory/philosophy of common law; I have a hard enough time getting people to understand and believe me when I say no incivility was intended, let alone delving into the bowels of legal realism and positivism; in any case, I don't find the cases to be "widely discrepant" because as I said before I don't think they stand for the things you claim they do stand for—they are insufficient precedent for what you are claiming, mostly because what you claim for them are not even discussed by the participants; (5) how do you know I or any other editor "routinely overlooks" Otto's incivility? For all you know, I've already dealt with the issue over email, or I'm dealing with the issue right now over e-mail, or I'm prepping some on-WP comments/actions as we speak, or, or, or .... It's kind of a pointless game to try to guess at how others regard certain behaviour. (6) All I can suggest for your personal feelings is that if another editor is rude to you personally, ignore him. (7) This is all quite off-topic at this point so I suggest if you want to continue down this path we use the talk page. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The LGBT related TV episodes category has been renominated so why not shut up about it in unrelated CFDs and hash it out there if you're so incensed about it? Otto4711 (talk) 14:29, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Otto, your incivility problem and your inability to deal with it yourself or to have anyone who can deal with it appropriately is despicable. A statement that "so why not shut up about it" demonstrates a complete and utter inability to act appropriately with other editors. I discussed my reasoning at the CfD you created and look forward to at least one of the admins who frequents these CfDs to deal with your persistent incivility once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 01:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete with a certain reluctance, but the list at Microstate has much more detail, and allows navigation. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- A microstate is an entity whose owner has self-declared its independence. No one else recognises its status.  This is an interesting phenomenon, though I am not sure that any of the subjects are actually notable.  Small city states, such as Monaco, San Merino, Danzig and Vatican City are a different phenomenon altogether and should not appear.  The category may need a definition as a headnote to ensure that only microstates and not small nations appear.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you may be confusing microstates with micronations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep both to correspond to their root articles and for a quick search in these categories.--Opus88888 (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * keep both being so very small is certainly a defining characteristic of these countries--possibly their only truly defining characteristic. Categories are to aid in navigation to articles on subjects having a common characteristic and these do so.  Hmains (talk) 02:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The rationale for deletion is not that being small is not defining. It is that choosing a cut-off for inclusion is arbitrary and not self-evident. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As we have unanimously agreed so far at Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 18, the fact that the "cut-off for inclusion is arbitrary and not self-evident" there, if not even more arbitrary, seems to be no impediment to keeping the category. Other than personal preference, on what basis can anyone make a determination as to which of these should be kept and which deleted? Alansohn (talk) 06:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * By taking a broader view than just looking at two isolated discussions in a spider's-eye view. Ask, which approach is followed more often in similar cases? Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep both. This is an important defining characteristic, which for me outweighs the subjectivity concerns. -- Avenue (talk) 03:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per Johnbod. The lists do a better job and allow navigation.  --Kbdank71 16:28, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * All lists do a better job and allow navigation. Categories can never list additional details or provide for sorting, etc. That lists can do things a category can't is a design feature, not a reason for deletion. Why does the capability of lists have to do with a reason for deleting this category? Alansohn (talk) 22:30, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't say the capability of lists was my reason. These particular lists do a better job than these particular categories.  Not all lists are better than categories.  --Kbdank71 14:52, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Twist your words? (straight from your edit summary here). Other than "per Johnbod", who seemed far more conflicted on this issue, your sole reason for deletion was "The lists do a better job and allow navigation" which leargely matches Johnbod's sole reason of "the list at Microstate has much more detail, and allows navigation" (note: All of these are direct quotes). As WP:CLN states "Developers of these redundant systems should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap." Categories can never do many of the things that lists can. What is it about the inherent design of the category system in Wikipedia that would justify retention of all other categories that suffer from the same flaw, while deleting this one? I'd love to hear a criteria -- subjective, objective, anything -- that would explain how and when a particular category should be deleted because of the perceived inherent superiority of lists, and let's test that approach on this category here. That way it would look less like a matter of arbitrary personal preference. Alansohn (talk) 15:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Did somebody say "arbitrary"? Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:36, 25 April 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:Rugby union Number 8s
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 01:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rugby union Number 8s to Category:Rugby union number eights
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Almost, but not quite, speediable. No other rugby union position category has the position capitalised, and the relevant section heading in Rugby union positions refers to the "number eight", which is also the usual spelling in the print media (here in New Zealand, at least, though I suspect it's true worldwide). Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  00:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom and per Rugby_union_positions. Occuli (talk) 21:42, 20 April 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:Jewish assassins
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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.  As mentioned below and in my close Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_14, we don't categorize assassins by religion or ethnicity, but by nationality.  Since Jewish is not a nationality, we should either find which nationality these people were, or failing that (or if perhaps they had none), they can be categorized in Category:Assassins with the other assassin articles. Kbdank71 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * jewish assassins


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorize assassins by religion or ethnicity, we categorize them by nationality: Jewish is not a nationality. Don't worry, we still have Category:Israeli assassins. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Question. What "nationality" are Eliyahu Bet-Zuri and Eliyahu Hakim? They can't be "Israeli" because Israel didn't exist yet when they died. (I think I created this category to "resolve" this problem.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Israeli. We normally classify people who lived places before they became independent with the independent country, like Soghomon Tehlirian who was born in the Ottoman Empire (in the area that was part considered "Armenia", although various machinations at the Paris Peace Conference dumped the place into Turkey, did his assassination in German, and died in the USA. Categorized as Armenian. Leonid Nikolaev was born in the Russian Empire, but did his dirty work for and in the Soviet Union and died there. Categorized as Russian. Jan Kubiš was born in the Austrian Empire, lived in Czechoslovakia after independence did his deed in the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and died there. Classified as Czech (probably should be Czechoslovak, as we have that category as well). Herschel Grynszpan was born in the German Empire of parents who had come from Poland, after WWI they became Polish citizens, he did his deed in France, and died in a concentration camp - may never have been to Poland. Categorized as Polish. Eligiusz Niewiadomski born in the Russian Empire (Warsaw), did his deed in independent Poland following WWI. Categorized as Polish.  also Rosli Dhobi, born, assassined, and died in the British Crown Colony of Sarawak, before Malaysia was formed (1963) or even its predecessor Malaya (1948). Categorized as Malaysian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: further this practice is used outside of the context of assassins: notable Americans who died before the establishment of the United States (1789) are classified as "Americans", Hubert Nathaniel Critchlow, the great labor leader in British Guinea (pre-independence) is classified as Guyanese, etc. etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Eliyahu Bet-Zuri and Eliyahu Hakim are categorized in Category:Israeli people stubs. Similarly, Arabs that lived in Gaza or the West Bank in the last century are categorized as Palestinian regardless of the national/political situation during the subject's life span. --Anewpester (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * So why are neither of these in the Israeli category, & your nom does not propose merging them there? Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * They should be and I'll go ahead and to that right now. Proposing a merger would be incorrect because Jews are not necessarily Israeli. Herschel Grynszpan and Sholom Schwartzbard, both Jewish assassins, were not Israeli.--Anewpester (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct; not all Jews are Israelis nor all Israelis Jews. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom (creator of category). The above discussion answered my question well, and I think is the best solution here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per deleters and per the 3 related earlier (ongoing) discussions on all 3 of its parents. Occuli (talk) 10:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - whether "Jewish" is considered a religion or an ethnicity for purposes of this discussion, it is OCAT. We would not have Category:Methodist assassins or Category:Cajun assassins. Otto4711 (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep.
 * 1) There is plenty of precedent for treating Jews as an ethnicity in categories.
 * 2) To consider the term "Jewish" as a social and/or cultural entity that is established in different countries or regions. --Opus88888 (talk) 14:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as much as it doesn't give me any religio-ethnic pride to retain the category, it does fit in well for navigation purposes with the parent categories of Category:Assassins by religion, Category:Assassins by ethnicity and Category:Jewish murderers. As proposed by the nominator, this category and Category:Israeli assassins are not interchangeable; all Jews are not Israelis and all Israelis are not Jews. The absence of other theoretically similar categories is never a valid justification for deletion. If there were Methodist or Cajun assassins, particularly where there were a connection to their religion or ethnicity, I would be fully supportive of retention. We have a pattern of grouping articles for minority groups as variously defined by race, religion and other characteristics, while we don;t do so for majority groups, no matter how well they correspond. Thus, we have Category:African American members of the United States Congress, but not Category:White members of the United States Congress; we have Category:Jewish athletes, but not Category:Protestant athletes; and why we have Category:LGBT-related television episodes, but not Category:Heterosexual-related television episodes. While many of these assassins here may also be included in various nationality-based categories, the ethnicity is relevant in many of these case and should be available as a means of navigation. Alansohn (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I could not agree more that this category is every bit as appropriate within the categorization system as the three suggested parents, two of which have been deleted and the third of which is on its way out. Otto4711 (talk) 08:33, 22 April 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.