Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 23



Category:Baseball personnel

 * 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: merging (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Baseball personnel to Category:Baseball people
 * Nominator's rationale: It is unclear how "personnel" is more distinct that "people" and category is small in any case SFB 22:08, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support as more consistent (and not over-precise while failing to signal anything certain with the more precise word).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There are many subcategories in this tree with "personnel" in the name, are you planning to propose renaming for all of them, or just the top category? And there are also many subcategories with "field personnel" in this tree, what is going to happen with these? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * All those subcategories clarify the personnel is in relation to a given team name, hence there is a clear distinction there between personnel and people (e.g. Category:Cleveland Indians broadcasters are people that do not constitute Category:Cleveland Indians personnel. Note that only a tiny proportion of people placed under baseball people would not also be personnel of (i.e. employed by) some organization in relation to the sport (e.g. John Adams (drummer)). This designation serves no purpose higher than Category:Baseball personnel by team level – I don't think a hypothetical parent tree for Category:Employed people is a useful one. Personally, I think the subdivision of personnel by team into non-field and field personnel is not useful for navigation and could do with upmerging into one category. Possibly merging and renaming these into "TEAM people" categories could be useful? I don't think that conversation is integral to this nomination however. SFB 18:32, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and to remove overcategorization.--TM 20:59, 3 June 2018 (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:Palestinian executives

 * 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 the sub-cat is already in the correct other parents. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:22, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Palestinian executives to Category:Palestinian business executives‎
 * Nominator's rationale: No other content other than the merge target. No other country has such a tree and it is unclear what "executive" consists of without the business qualifier SFB 21:15, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The suggested target is already well categorised, so that merging to a parent is not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2018 (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:Firefighting officers

 * 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 Firefighter ranks (WP:NAC). DexDor(talk) 05:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Firefighting officers to Category:Firefighting roles
 * Nominator's rationale: The current title suggests a container for people, rather than a container for roles as per current content. SFB 20:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The current name is misleading.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:12, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Question why not Category:Firefighting occupations? Roles sounds as if it concerns theater. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The contents aren't occupations, but rather ranks and roles that firefighters may serve as. On second thought, perhaps Category:Firefighter ranks would be a better name, aligning with Category:Police ranks? SFB 18:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds more reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I can buy that; I guess we don't want someone to categorize actors there for having played firefighter roles in movies and TV, either.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:00, 5 June 2018 (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:Sporting artists

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sporting artists to Category:Sports artists
 * Nominator's rationale: There is the potential to misinterpret the current title as "artists who also engage in sport". The proposed change unambiguously suggests artists whose subject focus in sports SFB 19:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Grutness... wha?   02:05, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose this I see the issue, but "Sporting artist" is the correct and usual term, and "Sports artist" afaik an ugly coinage. A headnote to the cat is sufficient. There are many historical artists who could be added to this category, which is mainly or initially an English one, showing fox hunting, horse racing, cock fights and the like, rather than ball games or athletics, hugely popular from the late 17th to mid 20th centuries. 7/8 in the main category at present are English artists of this type, with more in "Equine artists" sub-cat. There might be a case for splitting off Category:Modern sports artists for people painting racing cars etc., if we had more of them.  At present there seems only to be a 1 1/2 line stub on NASCAR specialist Sam Bass (artist).  It's a bit hard for modern ones to get notable, as there isn't really critical coverage of this unfashionable area.  We don't have a Sports/Sporting art (only Sport in ancient Greek art, which is of course very different), but note the title and terminology in National Sporting Library & Museum - this is in Virginia. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Speaking as someone who works as both an art critic and artist, I've far less frequently heard the term "sporting artist" than "sports artist". Both uses seem to be found on both sides of the Atlantic, but the "sporting" term is certainly more ambiguous and has both the usage of an artist of sports images and an artist who also participates in sports. As such, if there is an ugly coinage here, it's the current name. "Sports artist" gets about five times as many ghits than "sporting artist", including use by such organisations as the BBC, and "sports art" gets 20 times more hits that "sporting art", including its use by the Olympics. The highest international award for this genre of art is the International Sports Artist of the Year Award. And here on Wikipedia, 34 articles use the term "sports artist", only 26 use "sporting artist" - and those that do use the latter term frequently do so in a completely different sense. I'd also point out our categories, , , , and . Grutness... wha?   23:02, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and consistency with the others pointed out by Grutness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support as more consistent and precise, non-ambiguous.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:10, 26 May 2018 (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:People associated with bungee jumping

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People associated with bungee jumping to Category:Bungee jumpers
 * Nominator's rationale: All those in this category are distinguished bungee jumpers. The proposed is a more natural title for topic, rather than the more nebulous one. SFB 19:35, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. Fair enough - almost everyone connected with the sport is actually a jumper as well. Grutness... wha?   01:58, 24 May 2018 (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:Signatories of the Writers and Editors War Tax Protest

 * 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. Timrollpickering 10:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting signatories of the writers and editors war tax protest


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. The tax protest in question is itself a redirect. TM 18:33, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, this was a major form of protest for many people who were otherwise not substantially involved in Vietnam war resistance. Joining the protest was an action by which signers publicly identified themselves as war resisters advocating civil disobedience in a highly publicized way. The protest is notable and worthy of an article; it just hasn't been written yet. Daask (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * To clarify, my point is that many, although probably not all, signatories defined themselves as war resisters specifically because of their participation in this protest. Daask (talk) 14:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - this may be "a major form of protest...", but it's WP:NON-DEFINING for Henry Miller etc (see also WP:DNWAUC). DexDor(talk) 21:23, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; presumably no one is notable for having signed this, contrary to, say, signing the US Declaration of Independence which was the major claim to fame of many of the signatories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-defining. Carlossuarez46 says what I was thinking.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:13, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's amazing how convincing overwhelming opposition can be. It seems clear that y'all are right that this is WP:NON-DEFINING. If you don't mind, I'd like to empty the category myself so I can decide whether the parent categories Tax resisters and American anti–Vietnam War activists are appropriate on a case-by-case basis. Daask (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete and we should be very reluctant to recategorize any of these writers in either Category:Tax resisters and Category:American anti–Vietnam War activists. Signing the declaration was the only thing that most of them did in this respect. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2018 (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:Rayne Rice Birds

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Keep. Timrollpickering 22:30, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rayne rice birds


 * Nominator's rationale: Defunct baseball team with just one entry and a subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:29, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep It has enough topics to keep. This category brings order to the topic and should be kept. If you want Wikipedia to become less organized and harder to use, then delete it. spatms Talk:spatms 17:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The category for the 1934 name "Rayne Red Sox" has now been deleted. As that CFD included support for merger to this category, it did not amount to sufficient consensus to delete this one.
 * Procedural comment, this discussion is nearly similar to this other discussion in which meanwhile more editors have commented. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Only 3 items, but it's the neatest way of grouping them. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a defunct minor league baseball team in existence for just a couple of years. There are over 600 defunct minor leagues. Most in fact don't have a category. Simply because there aren't any entries other than the team and its players. The creator for this category solely created minor league team subcategories for teams from Louisiana....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:17, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * my !vote is based on organising content, rather than on the nature of the topic. If it still contained only 2 items I would support deletion. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It has only 2 entries now. As the one subcategory didn't belong....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I have reverted your WP:POINTy removal. I hope I don't need to explain why it was pointy. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It isn't pointy. That's how these categories are done per consensus. Are the Syracuse SkyChiefs players a subcategory of Syracuse Chiefs category. NO! I can list plenty of other examples. BHG, you're not familar with the WP Baseball....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:59, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Same team. Rayne Red Sox redirects to Rayne Rice Birds. Now, per WP:BRD: you made a bold edit and it was reverted. Don't editwar; discuss. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 00:04, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not the same team and did you read my explanation above. If you had checked Syracuse Sky Chiefs redirects to Syracuse Chiefs but the players categories aren't both subcategories of Syracuse Chiefs. ML baseball teams in a city change owners, affiliations all the time. That doesn't mean they are the same. Do you know how many different names there are for teams out Tacoma Washington?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:14, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Another example Rhode Island Red Sox redirects to Pawtucket Red Sox but Category:Rhode Island Red Sox players isn't a subcategory of Category:Pawtucket Red Sox....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:23, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yet another example Toledo Sox redirects to Toledo Mud Hens but Category:Toledo Sox players isn't a subcategory of Category:Toledo Mud Hens. Should I continue?...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Honestly I think that players-of-former-club-name should become a subcategory of players-of-current-club-name. But that would still leave only two items in this category, so for the nomination it does not matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't there be more if the other CfD closed to merge the redundant categories?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No because what I am proposing is to have it merged to the players subcategory of this nominated category. It would not populate the nominated category any further. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 5 June 2018 (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:RFC

 * 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:Wikipedia requests for comment templates. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:RFC to the title determined best in this discussion.
 * Nominator's rationale: The concise rationale is: my word, as the category's author, that mistakes were made when naming it, and: my desire, as the category's author, to achieve the best possible corrective action. I was not interested in pursuing any of the "speedy" solutions because thoughtful discussion is needed most in this matter, at this time. Initially, discussion took place here, and is linked for consideration by anyone interested. Two titles emerged in that discussion as possibilities for renaming the category; they are:"Category:Wikipedia requests for comment administration and Category:Wikipedia requests for comment process"Between those two, and others that may be suggested, consensus will determine the best name. The category will be an administration tracking category for pages exclusive to the RfC process that does not commingle itself within content categories, nor its members among non-RfC-specific pages. The main category in its hierarchy will be Category:Wikipedia requests for comment and its main, "non-article", page will be Requests for comment. Instead of deleting Category:RFC when the appropriate title is determined, it should be fashioned into a soft redirect to either the renamed category, or to the main category, whichever accords with known best practice. I offer my thanks, in advance, to those who will participate in this discussion and help to best resolve it.--John Cline (talk) 02:59, 23 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Wikipedia requests for comment templates, and upmerge items that are not templates or redirects to templates. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:28, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename per Fayenatic London. The name should (a) start with "Wikipedia" and (b) not be an abbreviation. If I saw, I'd assume it was for articles connected to the Royal Flying Corps - so the idea of a soft redirect is questionable. Grutness... wha?   02:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Wikipedia requests for comment templates per Fayenatic London, and purge non-templates. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename to anything that meets Grutness's (a) and (b) requirements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename per Fayenatic london. Agreed with Grutness that we need no redir, because of the ambiguity.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:14, 26 May 2018 (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.