Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 18



People by school in New Zealand

 * 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: '''Renaming: Category:Napier Boys' High School alumni to Category:Former students of Napier Boys' High School
 * Category:Old Collegians (Auckland) to Category:Former students of King's College, Auckland
 * Category:Former pupils of Auckland Grammar School to to Category:Former students of Auckland Grammar School
 * Category:Christchurch Boys' High School alumni to Category:Former students of Christchurch Boys' High School
 * Category:Alumni of Gisborne Boys' High School to Category:Former students of Gisborne Boys' High School — Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming various subcategories
 * Nominator's rationale: The naming of subcategories of is a thorough mess and needs standardising before there are too many more of them. Currently, we have the following subcats:
 * Category:Napier Boys' High School alumni
 * Category:Old Collegians (Auckland)
 * Category:Former pupils of Auckland Grammar School
 * Category:Christchurch Boys' High School alumni
 * Category:Alumni of Gisborne Boys' High School
 * Personally, I think the style "Former students of..." is possibly the best. I note also that a similar mess exists with the equivalent Australia categories (see ), but I'll leave that to someone else to sort out... Grutness...wha?  23:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

If we rename these categories, then we should also rename all the English categories so that they make sense to those readers not versed in the social intricacies of the English "public" school system. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Obscure names along the lines of "old Fooians" fail at the first hurdle, because they are not recognizable to readers. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename all to Former students of X. I agree that the style "Former students of..." is clearest, but Category:People by school in England is full of obscure titles of the format "old somethings", but attempts to move to a plain English format have generated strong resistance.  See  for example Categories for_discussion/Log/2006 December 19 and my nomination at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 23. (The latter nomination at least resulted in the addition of a parenthesised clarifier).
 * Rename all per nom and BHG above. (The "Old Citizens" one actually sounds unintentionally funny...) Orderinchaos 09:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The term alumni is standard in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * For tertiary institutions, yes - but I don't know of any hard-and-fast rule here for secondary schools. If there werre such a rule, these categories wouldn't be such a mess. Grutness...wha?  20:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom except for Category:Old Collegians (Auckland), assuming this is the correct term. (The UK case is completely different as there is a host of schools with correctly named alumni categories, rather than just 1 out of a few. Ah yes, David Cameron, the well-known alumnus of Eton College.) Occuli (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. "Old Etonian" seems to me to the exception that proves the rule. The school and its social networks are so well known that "Old Etonian" is indeed the common name, but most other uses of similar constructions are merely an internal piece of jargon used a school and its former inmates, rather than by the wider world. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Second reply Old Etonian is a term known worldwide. Old Collegian isn't even particularly widely known within New Zealand. Grutness...wha?  23:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Surely the principle here should be "what do they call themselves?" and use that, whether it is "Old Fooians", "Foo Grammar alumni". "Old members of Foo Grammar" or whatever, even if it is not uniform. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  08:03, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. Naming conventions has at the top of its page a neat summary of the principles involved: "Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources."
 * Well, I guess I disagree with either that convention or your interpretation of it. "usage in reliable English-language sources" generally follows what the group calls themselves. Also if we invent a name for a group, what reliable source do we have for that usage? We should not invent names for groups of people, but use the names they use. We do not do so for articles. Why do we do it for categories? "Old fooians" is recognisable to "Old fooians" if that is the name they use. Anything else is not meaningfull to anyone. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  12:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * BDuke, it comes down to a simple question - do we want categories arranged so only those "in the know" can find them, e.g., in this case, the people themselves, or do we want categories which are at logically consistent names where any reader, casual or expert, can find them easily? The principle has never been "what do they call themselves?" - the only place anything like that principle comes into play is when different spelling rules are widely accepted terms are used in different countries. We're not "inventing a name" for them, we're simply using a more generic and less quirky term rather than one which is unlikely to be known by the general public and is likely to be difficult to guess. Grutness...wha?  00:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I still maintain that we want the name to be accurate, the one that is actually used out there in the real world. If we had an article on "Old Fooians", that is what it would be called. We might have a redirect from the other expressions. If we use a different term, we are interfering as it would be pressure on the School to change the name of their old members. Wikipedia is now successful and widely used. We should be reporting as it is, not trying to change it. But let us leave it to the closing admin. I'm not going to change my opinion. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  06:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Bduke, this is not about changing the name of the school or of it's past pupils; they will continue to use whatever labelling they like. this discussion is about a proposal to use standardised form of description as a naming convention for these categories on wikipedia, which is exactly what we do for people-from-places categories. So we have, not ,  not ,  not ,  not , and so on. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:43, 22 December 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:Japanese baseball video games

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: Merge to parent category Category:Baseball video games. There is a clear consensus that this category as it stands is inappropriate, but no consensus on creating any particular  new category for some or all of the 17 articles in this category. However, there is a consenus that any such new category must be cleraly-defined and unambiguously-named. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Japanese baseball video games to Category:Video games about Japanese baseball
 * Nominator's rationale: This is ambiguous: are these video games about baseball that is played in Japan or are these video games about baseball in general that were created in Japan? I'm pretty sure it's the former, but it's not clear from the title. Any suggestions? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment from the contents, it's pretty clear it is not Japanese baseball, since several entries are about generic, cartoon, or North American baseball. I suppose they could be removed from the renamed category. 76.66.194.154 (talk) 07:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Are there any major differences between baseball in the U.S. and in Japan? (Example, we don't consider the National and American leagues different games because of the Designated Hitter.)  Are they different games, or somewhat different ways of playing the same game (I believe they are the latter.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think this should be . It's the video games that are Japanese, not the baseball. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe we should give the cartoon video games the category, the Japanese baseball video games with the category , and put all North American baseball games with the category ? GVnayR (talk) 03:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted from CfD November 29 to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Notifications : WikiProject Video games and WikiProject Baseball. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems like over-categorization to me. And as mentioned above, some are generic baseball games developed in Japan, rather than games about Japanese baseball. Which begs the question, is Japanese baseball different enough to warrant such a distinction? Not in my opinion. (Guyinblack25 talk 22:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC))
 * Japanese professional baseball is very different from American professional baseball in that the NPB is not the MLB. However, while I know a lot about the NPB, I have no idea if video games featuring NPB teams exist, how many there are, or if they are popular. -- T orsodo g Talk 17:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Even taking into account the differences, which are more culturally based than technically, they are outnumbered by the similarities. Baseball is played like baseball where ever you go. Subtle nuances rarely warrant a new category. (Guyinblack25 talk 19:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC))
 * No, obviously there should not be a category about "Japanese baseball" video games. The term "Japanese baseball" means nothing. I am pretty sure by using the term, whoever created the cat was most likely referring to the NPB. If anything, it should be broken up by league (ie MLB video games, NPB video games). I'm pretty sure that is what the original intent of this category was to begin with. -- T orsodo g Talk 06:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I see now. I agree that an NPB video game category would be more viable. However, like you said, finding such games would be rather difficult. :-\ (Guyinblack25 talk 16:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC))


 * Delete and populate the baseball video game category with them (if such a thing is possible, or should I add that category now in case?) I agree with Guyinblack, this is a step too far, the baseball video game category is specific enough. Someoneanother 11:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, and move articles to Category:Baseball video games: We've established well enough that "Japanese baseball" is neither a different enough game to warrant a category of video game articles nor apparently the purpose of the category anyway, leaving us with "Japanese video games about baseball". Delete on that basis as well, since there is no precedent for subcategorizing video games by country of publication or development (and which would it be? vague inclusion criteria!). We do not need any kind of category for "cartoon video games" of any sort. Cartoons are animation, and video games are also animation. Most modern cartoons are made via pretty much precisely the same technologies as video games, so any alleged difference is simply someone's subjective opinion that this game looks somehow more "cartoonish" than that one. That's a very serious WP:NPOV problem. To someone like me, virtually every video game looks "cartoonish" and the more anime-ish they are they more they look this way, but people steeped in anime will have a different view on this, and see semi-realistic anime style art/animation as non-cartoonish, and only see really, really exaggeratory anime style (Pokemon, etc. - the stuff with ridiculously huge eyes, and mouths so small eating a peanut would cause damage) as "cartoonish".  I mean, ICK. Let's just not go there.  Put all these games back in Category:Baseball video games.  There's nothing wrong with that cat., and it has many siblings. PS: For any game article the editors of which feel it is more a something-else kind of game than a baseball game (e.g. it just uses baseball as a surface theme, or whatever), they are free to re-categorize it as necessary. I.e., I would just dump all these things back into the B'bal VG cat., and let any article-by-article adjustments be made by relevant editors as the need is felt to arise. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 07:30, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename - As with the category Category:Major League Baseball video games, this cat should be renamed to Category:Nippon Professional Baseball video games and only populated with games involving the NPB, Japan's baseball league. From the looks of it, most of the games in that cat fit this description anyways. -- T orsodo g Talk 22:21, 22 December 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:John Most albums

 * 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: speedy delete as empty per WP:CSD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * john most albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty category, articles were deleted as non-notable Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete then, especially as John Most is a red-link. Occuli (talk) 15:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: I sent to CSD, sorry I didn't see that you could do that for Categories. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 15:16, 18 December 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:Cancelled things

 * 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 to Category:Cancelled projects and events. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Cancelled things to Category:Cancelled projects
 * Nominator's rationale: The creator of the category agrees that Cancelled projects would be a more appropriate and in line with a correct category name SatuSuro 12:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. I'm the creator but had reservations about "things" from the beginning. Projects seems a reasonable fit to all members. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Much as I like the casual tone of "things", "projects" feel rather more appropriate for an encyclopedia. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Possibility: Maybe even ? Things like Olympics and elections are not really "projects", but they are "events". Anything is better than the current, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename - no preference between "projects" and "projects and events", both would be an improvement. Orderinchaos 10:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I have no problem either way - the creator agreed it can be 'improved' - and either 'projects' or 'projects and events' seems a good way to go - I'll leave it to others or the closer to resolve that SatuSuro 10:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. 'projects and events' seems good way to me too, and probably a bit more inclusive than just 'projects'. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename, the longer version. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 07:31, 21 December 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:Rehat Maryada

 * 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: Closed. This is a page move request and not a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rehat Maryada to Category:Sikh Rehat Maryada
 * Nominator's rationale: The article should be named Sikh Rehat Maryada and not Rehat Maryada. Rehat Maryada is a generic term and can apply to any code of conduct, whereas this article refers to the Sikh Rehat Maryada. See:


 * 1) ^ Kapoor, Sukhbir Singh; Mohinder Kaur Kapoor (2008). "Introduction". The Making of the Sikh Rehatnamas. New Delhi, India: Hemkunt Publishers. pp. 9. ISBN 9788170103707. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=6A_IX9WxnhoC&pg=PA9&dq=Sikh+rehat+maryada&as_brr=3&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Sikh%20rehat%20maryada&f=false. Retrieved 17th December 2009.
 * 2) ^ Takhar, Opinderjit Kaur (2005). "3" (in English). Sikh identity: an exploration of groups among Sikhs (Hardback ed.). England: Ashgate; illustrated edition edition (24 Aug 2005). pp. 76. ISBN 978-0-7546-5202-1. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=aeKWQzesOc4C&pg=PA76&dq=Sikh+rehat+maryada&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Sikh%20rehat%20maryada&f=false. Retrieved 17th December 2009.
 * 3) ^ "Sikh Reht Maryada, The Definition of Sikh, Sikh Conduct & Conventions, Sikh Religion Living, India". www.sgpc.net. http://www.sgpc.net/sikhism/sikh-dharma-manual.html. Retrieved 2009-08-29.
 * 4) ^ "Sikh Reht Maryada, The Definition of Sikh, Sikh Conduct & Conventions, Sikh Religion Living, India". Sgpc.net. http://www.sgpc.net/rehat_maryada/section_six.html. Retrieved 2009-08-09.
 * 5) ^ "Sikh Reht Maryada, The Definition of Sikh, Sikh Conduct & Conventions, Sikh Religion Living, India". www.sgpc.net. http://www.sgpc.net/sikhism/sikh-dharma-manual.html. Retrieved 2009-08-29.
 * 6) ^ "Sikh Reht Maryada, The Definition of Sikh, Sikh Conduct & Conventions, Sikh Religion Living, India". www.sgpc.net. http://www.sgpc.net/sikhism/sikh-dharma-manual.html. Retrieved 2009-08-29.
 * 7) ^ Haynes, Jeffrey ((30 Jun 2008)). "19" (in English). Routledge handbook of religion and politics (1 edition ed.). Routledge;. pp. 316. ISBN 0415414555. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ULWtjZxscpIC&pg=PT328&dq=Sikh+rehat+maryada&as_brr=3&cd=5#v=onepage&q=Sikh%20rehat%20maryada&f=false. Retrieved 17th December 2009. Sikh- History 09:30, 18 December 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.

Organisations based in the United Kingdom

 * 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: speedy rename per WP:SNOW, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United Kingdom to Category:Non-profit organisations based in the United Kingdom
 * Propose renaming Category:Non-profit organizations based in Wales to Category:Non-profit organisations based in Wales
 * Propose renaming Category:British Islamic organizations to Category:British Islamic organisations
 * Propose renaming Category:University organizations of the British Armed Forces to Category:University organisations of the British Armed Forces
 * Propose renaming Category:British veterans' organizations to Category:British veterans' organisations
 * Nominator's rationale: The predominant spelling the UK is "organisation" and this is the dominant form in Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom. Per also this previous CFD. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per persuasive nom. Occuli (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nom. Orderinchaos 10:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Support Renames to match UK spelling. Alansohn (talk) 21:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename - this is just typo fixing, since British spelling is tied to British topics. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 07:32, 21 December 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:Celtic sports clubs

 * 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. Consensus found this category to be no more than a trivial intersection. Some of us should review WP:AGF and WP:CIV, but that discussion is for another time. —  ξ xplicit  10:58, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * celtic sports clubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Aside from being misnamed (a possibly fixable problem; logically it should be something like, but that's horrendous), the raison d'etre of the category is unsupportable. This is blatant overcategorization, namely of the "trivial intersection" variety.  This is amply demonstrated by the categories this is a subcategory of: Category:Sports clubs and Category:Celtic culture.  None of these teams actually have anything at all to do with Celtic culture any more than any other team.  This would be exactly like creating a Category:Feline sports clubs as a subcategory of Category:Sports clubs and Category:Felines, for teams with "Lions", "Tigers", "Bengals", etc. in their names.  The clincher, basically, is that no main article could be written about this (nor about feline-named clubs). Even a list article would get AfD'd as trivia (technically "collection of indiscriminate information", per WP:NOT.) If there were multiple reliable sources for "Celtic" having a particular actual meaning in the sports context, some kind of Celtic (sports) article could be written, but this would not engender a category, it would simply be an article in Category:Sports terminology. And in fact, there are no such sources, because it doesn't actually have any particular meaning. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 06:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing your references to reliable sources for the "clear definition" of "Celtic people" or "Celtic people" which includes Celtic F.C. but not Hibernian F.C. or London Irish ... but until you post that info, I'll continue to support the nominator's view that this is categorisation by shared name. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as categorisation by name. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as categorisation by name, indeed. Occuli (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as categorisation by name, indeed, indeed. (It's snowing outside, and this discussion looks snowy too). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
 * Listify and delete converting it to a disambiguation page: there seem to be quite enough to warrnat that. Or is there one already? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. No objections to listification, which sounds like a rather good idea. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Absolute Keep. Another outrageous nomination. To claim these clubs have nothing to do with Celtic culture is absolute b*ll**ks. The term has a clear definition when used in sport. It clearly denotes a club was formed by Irish or Celtic people. There are similar categories for Category:Hakoah sport clubs, which indicate a club is of Jewish origin, Their are also others for Category:Croatian sports clubs in Australia and Category:Serbian sports clubs in Australia. Will they be nominated for deletion !! The comparison with animals is offensive, ridiculous, inaccurate and one of the worst examples of comparison I’ve seen on Wiki. A club with the suffix Lions does not mean it was formed by a lion ! However a club with Celtic in its name is most likely to have been formed by people of Celtic origin. A bit obvious. PS should at least be listified if deleted. Djln --Djln (talk) 15:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Djln, it's great to see that WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are alive and well.
 * And Djln, you don't have to censor yourself. I doubt anyone would be offended by the word "bollocks" any more than they would be by "hooters", "bumcakes", "weenie" or "furburger". The offensive part is your characterization of others' views as worthless, not whether you bother to spell out words that aren't likely to shock anyone to begin with. For fuck's sake. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93; ‹(-¿-)› 07:38, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Counter: Well, "most likely to have been" is the operative phrase here: I means that there is no clear inclusion criterion. I'm not even going to get into the issue of the definition of "Celtic", which is a huge can of worms itself, one with entrenched points of view that will never see eye to eye. Some of the other categories you mention may in fact be good candidates for deletion. They would have to be examined on a case-by-case basis. Lastly, even if the inclusion criterion were not vague, it would be of no consequence anyway. Every non-"Celtic"-named team founded in a predominantly "Celtic" area is just as "Celtic" as neighboring teams with "Celtic" in their names. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 07:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep to group articles by a common defining characteristic for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply a category of things which share a common name serves no useful navigational purpose, because a simple search can do the same job. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. This is very similar to the other categories that categorized sports teams by origin of their name that were recently deleted. It's a textbook example of overcategorization by shared name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Perhaps renaming along the lines of Category:Sports clubs with Celtic in title could be a solution ? A number points need making.


 * Everyone of these clubs was founded by Celtic people or by those inspired by other clubs with the name.
 * How can you compare categories connected to animals to categories about ethnic groups ? Am I the only that finds this spurious and offensive. I would go as far as saying this is borderline racism.
 * There are already articles about Celts and Celtic nations which are well referenced and provide enough info about the Celts.
 * While other clubs maybe equally described as Celtic, they have not self identified as such. Djln --90.208.89.155 (talk) 13:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * What about Hibernian F.C.? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If Hibs had self identified as Celtic, they would be called something like Edinburgh Celtic and not Hibernian, but they hav'nt and they are'nt. You are going off the point by citing Hibs. They would be in a category called Hibernian sports clubs or Category:Sports clubs with Hibernian in title . However those would be poorly populated. It that not obvious ? Djln --Djln (talk) 15:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Irish culture is (mostly) a subset of wider Celtic culture, so the name "hibernian" identifies them as Celtic. And I'm not going off the point at  all: the central point here is that the inclusion criteria offered for this category is having "Celtic" in their name, and per WP:OC, that's not a form of categorisation we use on wikipedia. Have you read WP:OC? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Isn't there some Internet law that once one party alleges something is "borderline racist", they lose the argument? Or is that comparing something to Hitler or the Nazis? Same sort of idea .... Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is such a law, it was most likely to have been written by a racist or Nazi.Djln--Djln (talk) 16:40, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Holy cow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You are probably thinking of Godwin's law (which by the way is named after the general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation). PrimeHunter (talk) 03:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And my co-worker for something like 7 years. Small [e-]world, huh? —  SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs.  08:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * How exactly is shared names relevant here ? They have more then two things in common. Djln--Djln (talk) 21:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Um, it's relevant because they're being categorized on the basis of having a shared name. And even if the category were "fixed" to be about, say, "Sports clubs founded by Celtic people" it would still be deleted, as a trivial and non-defining intersection of traits per WP:OVERCAT, since there's nothing special or notable about a team being founded by an Irish- or Welsh-descended person versus an Italian or Javanese person. What part of this isn't clear? —  SMcCandlish    Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs.  08:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's why there has been discussion of whether there could be another basis for a category such as this, to avoid deleting it. I concluded that there isn't, and I'm happy to see that you agree. As to your claims of being stalked, if you still believe that's the case — or that I am abusing my role as an admin — then please hurry along and post a complaint at WP:ANI. As you already know, my concern about your editing has been I discovered by accident (and unrelated to this CFD) that you have been systematically depopulating categories in order to place the articles in an alternative category with what you believe to be a better name. You have rejected requests from me and others not to do this, which is why I am watching your edits, and I hope other editors will also watch them too. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. This debate has gotten a little fractious, since the category creator is offended by the proposed deletion, and doesn't seem to be engaging with either the definitional problems of the term "Celtic" or the problems of categorising things by shared name. However, the fact that that this particular category is misconceived should not obscure the fact that some of the clubs currently in this category are an important part of the history of the Irish diaspora, having been founded by marginalised communities of exiles with an explicit purpose of serving the Irish emigrants.  The category currently includes clubs in Ireland, which appear to be no different from other Irish sporting clubs, and some such as Bloemfontein Celtic and Oban Celtic which appear to have no connection at all with Ireland ... but a properly referenced list of sporting clubs founded by the Irish diaspora could be a valuable encyclopedic document.  Unfortunately, the list of clubs in this category both includes irrelevancies such as Bloemfontein Celtic and excludes Irish-founded clubs such as Hibs and London Irish, so listifying this category would only produce a poor disambiguation page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Once again BEGirl has missed the point. The category is not just about clubs formed by the Irish diaspora. Otherwise it would called Category:Sports clubs formed by the Irish diaspora. There are potentially dozens if not hundreds of sports clubs around the world, including some from here, that could populate such a category. Aside from Hibs and London Irish you could also include Boca Juniors and Melbourne Football Club. The category is about clubs with Celtic in their title. If this is not obvious by the title, then it should become clear with the additional line This category features sports clubs with Celtic or a variation of that name in their title. The reason why the title is used varies. Some (e.g, Boston Celtics and Celtic F.C. were formed by Irish diaspora. Other clubs were then inspired by the success of Celtic F.C.. This would include Belfast Celtic F.C., the  other Irish clubs listed and Bloemfontein Celtic. The latter article clearly states this in the introduction. The Green Hoops are another clue ! Finally there are also clubs who were founded by other non-Irish Celtic people such as Galacians - Celta de Vigo, Welsh - Celtic Crusaders and Celtic Warriors and Scots - Oban Celtic.  There is no need for a debate about exactly who the Celts are, as I already mentioned there are other articles on Wiki that do that already and do this. PS I think other editors should also be aware that since our disagreement over this category, BEGirl has been waging a stalking campaign against me and has been tracking my edits and threatening to block me for simply recategorising some articles, clearly abusing her role as an admin. Djln--Djln (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply. Djln, the point that numerous editors have repeatedly tried to explain to you is that per WP:OC, the only thing to with a category of clubs with nothing in common other than a shared name is to delete it.  I don't why you refuse to understand that simple point; surely it isn't that complicated to read the 69 words of  WP:OC?
 * Have read WP:OC and it not relevant, did you write it ? Djln--Djln (talk) 21:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:OC which seems very relevant. It's not a defining characteristic of a club whether they long ago chose a name with "Celtic" in it. Some of the clubs appear to have much less to do with Celtic people than many other clubs without Celtic in the name. PrimeHunter (talk) 23:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as meaningless intersection. Grouping sports clubs by being in the Celtic nations would be interesting.  Not interesting enough to last at CfD, but still interesting.  There are sides in this category from the United States, the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom, and the Republic of South Africa... and I stopped checking.  Listify this thing and delete the category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Commenting: We have some of these listed at the disambiguation page Celtic, but by no means all (or even most) of them. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment. I see what you were trying to do here, Djln, and it was a worthy attempt.  You saw a connection and wanted the world to notice it too.  I can also see that your pride has been bruised by some impolite comments by other editors, but do not take them to heart.  My advice, however, is this: if there is no concrete link between these clubs, other than the name, you should yield on this point.  IF you can establish a more substantive links between the clubs, as in The Red Army Sports Club (dozens of clubs directly modeled on each other), then I will support you to the bitter end. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:31, 26 December 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:User:Elium2
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#eeeeee; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more user 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: speedy delete, G7. –B LACK F ALCON  (T ALK ) 05:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * user


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:USERCAT, the purpose of user categories is to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". This category simply collects the user's subpages and is not necessary. — ξ <sup style="color:#000000;">xplicit  01:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Elium2's statement I get the point. In the future, if I create any more categories, I'll make sure they're useful! Elium2 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 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.