Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 14 April 16 >

April 15[edit]

Category:Hampshire County, Massachusetts Councillors[edit]

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one page, and it's not a person as the category would suggest it should be. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One is not enough. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 00:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is not actually a category for councillors qua people, but a misnamed eponymous category for the government body that the councillors sit on — but eponymous categories require far more than just the existence of an eponym before they're justified. And since it's not an NPOL-passing office for which the officeholders would be getting Wikipedia articles per se, repurposing it as a category for the people still wouldn't make it more worthy of retention either. Bearcat (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- At present this has a main article and nothing else. If there were five councillors who were notable for other reasons, I would vote to keep; if smaller to upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Demolished sports venues[edit]

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: dual merge for most, paying careful attention to parents, and keeping UK & US categories. The top one will be kept as it also holds a hierarchy by year. The New Orleans one will be merged to Louisiana as the US state hierarchy has not been nominated. – Fayenatic London 13:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is not a defining feature whether a sports venue has been demolished compared to being made defunct (which neatly covers this concept as well as abandonment and repurposing). On that basis, this tree should be merged back in to the parent structure. SFB 18:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes exactly, that is why it should be a dual merge instead of a single merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sports venues in Nigeria by city[edit]

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. bibliomaniac15 21:40, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the content logically matches the category scope. No need to have this split beyond Category:Sports venues in Africa by city or Category:Sports venues in Nigeria. SFB 18:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To make sure the earlier votes make sense, those two actual city categories were added after the nomination was posted. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ranveer Singh[edit]

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories for actors without enough spinoff content to warrant eponymous categories. Other than "Music videos featuring X" subcategories which are up for CFD here as WP:PERFCAT violations, the only other things here are their BLPs, "awards and nominations received by" lists which are already linked in the BLPs, and a filmography list for Kapoor (but not for Singh) which is also already linked in his BLP. As always, every person does not automatically get an eponymous category the moment they have just one or two splitout lists; they need to have a much more significant volume of spinoff content than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Both for Now With no objection to recreating if they ever get up to 5 direct articles defined by the person. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Trans-exclusionary radical feminism[edit]

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. bibliomaniac15 21:39, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two years ago this was kept as no-consensus. Since then, editorial practice has evolved and we no longer habitually categorise people even though they are identified by reliable sources as TERFs, because, well, it's rarely that simple, and does not appear to be definitional. The category has four articles including the categorical article, so really only three. This seems to me to be essentially moribund. We're not adding it to BLPs for good reasons, and that is pretty much the only place it could be meaningful, so this category is a dead end and I think we should be done with it. Guy (help!) 14:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Given that we're not using it to categorize individual people who've been labelled as TERFs (which is certainly not to suggest that we should be), there isn't enough related content here to warrant it. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and per the fact that if WP:NPOV is followed, this will always be a WP:SMALLCAT. The term TERF is highly contentious across WP:RS. It should also be deleted per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and per WP:LABEL: "Value-laden labels...may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution." That is obviously not possible to do with a category. Here is the RfC at BLPN where it was decided not to use the label on BLPs without attribution. Crossroads -talk- 16:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge if not kept, the articles should remain within the hierarchy of the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --Equivamp - talk 04:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reason we do not have Category:RINOs or other derogatory labels. buidhe 05:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because this is mostly used as a derogatory label. This category is used for name calling of biographical articles for which supposed or claimed opposition to transgenderism is in fact rarely defining. Place Clichy (talk) 01:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When was the last time that anyone actually self defined as this? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just for clarification, this is a topic category, not a set of biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:58, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Veganic farmers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete/merge (both articles are already in the merge target) (non-admin closure)Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is already a category for organic farmers, this category seems redundant. Psychologist Guy (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zulia politicians[edit]

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Different phrasing for the same thing. Alternately, could move the subcategory of "Governors of Zulia" into "Politicians from Zulia" and then delete "Zulia politicians" Jmertel23 (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Firstly, the latter category already existed about ten years before the former was even created — and secondly, our standard naming convention in this tree is "Demonym politicians" at the national level and "politicians from X" at the state, provincial or city levels, which means that the preexisting category was already at the correct name. Bearcat (talk) 05:17, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- We really do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:35, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Taxonomic synonyms[edit]

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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following an earlier CFD this category contains just 3 pages (one of them a redirect). As the category only has one parent it's not useful. DexDor (talk) 12:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Provincial board members of the Philippines[edit]

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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The national government doesn't have an office for provincial board members. Individual provinces do. Howard the Duck (talk) 08:45, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Interesting places in Rajasthan[edit]

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Again, Wikipedia is not a travel guide. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't really any better, as it introduces incredible amounts of POV subjectivity (are events tourist attractions? theatres? restaurants? lakes? bridges?) and still probably violates WP:TRAVEL, but that problem applies to the entire Category:Tourist attractions tree and not just Rajasthan's subcategory in isolation. So unfortunately that's a much larger discussion than we could realistically resolve here and now. Bearcat (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps someone ought to put the tree up for CFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Things to do in Nainital[edit]

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRAVEL and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, respectively. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with extreme prejudice. This is a terribly misguided use of categories. Guy (help!) 14:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We already have Category:Nainital for things in the town and Category:People from Nainital for "personalities" from it, so none of these categories is adding anything we don't already have at its more correct and neutral name. Furthermore, the only thing that has actually been added to any of these categories is our head article about Nainital itself, which is not how we use or apply categories — so within 30 seconds of my finishing this comment, they're all going to be empty categories to boot. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per subjectivity; we have a whole tree of Category:Tourist attractions which is seemingly, alas, a travel guide. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Regarding the "things to do" part, we have something like this in Nainital's Wikivoyage article but with no categories. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 00:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Super subjective and unlikely to help other readers navigate to articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment And these categories have been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 16:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Now empty. Something in the Tourist attractions tree would be an appropriate target if there was anything to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Money Heist[edit]

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. bibliomaniac15 02:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only a subcategory of characters. No evidence of anything else beyond the main article and its list of episodes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not yet. It is an expanding category. --Kasper2006 (talk) 11:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding because? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because this is happening. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now with no objection to recreating if/when @Kasper2006: can get this up to 5 articles (not counting redirects). RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: We now have 10 articles, while still 5 of this Category:Netflix original programming have less than 5 articles. Maybe now you can review your position. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for creating the character subcategory and, more so, the related articles! (I do have concerns about the location and song subcategories failing WP:OCVENUE and the spirit of WP:PERFCAT, respectively, though, because I don't think Bank of Spain or Guantanamera are defined by this series.) Are you still writing additional articles? RevelationDirect (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where was Money Heist filmed? Shooting locations for season 4 of La Casa de Papel (1) and Compay Segundo - Guajira Guantanamera (Lyric video) • La Casa De Papel | S3 Soundtrack (2) --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There no problem with verification but with being defining. The other categories under Category:Fictional locations are, well, fictional like Gotham or Narnia and defined by the fictional work not real-life filming locations. And the other Category:Songs from television series were created for that TV show, not classic songs that were just replayed. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Even assuming that two subcategories will be deleted (and it is not sure because now Category: Money Heist songs already has two original articles), now this category contains 14 elements: a subcategory with 5 articles, 4 independent articles and 6 media. Many more than most of the categories of Category: Netflix original programming. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 4 articles is still little enough to interlink directly between the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is no longer applicable after further population of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defer If the two other subcategories nominated for deletion, then this parent category is not needed. If they are retained, this parent category makes sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: What about, for example, Category:Black Mirror, Category:Lucifer (TV series), Category:The Crown (TV series)? If you consider the categories that can be confirmed by the number of subcategories contained (not by the articles), then there would be many categories to be deleted. --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kasper2006: The reason for this CFD is because of the articles of some of the subcategories (songs and locations) can be used as filming locations in other popular TV shows. Plus, the locations are actually real not fictional and the songs are not written for this show as they can be used in any other shows. As such, I am voting for Delete to these two subcategories. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would favor deleting all three of your other examples, if they were nominated. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait -- there seem to be enough items in the tree at the moment, but if some of the branches are merged, we may need to re-judge this in future. My guess is that the franchise will ultimately still need one category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cycle racing leagues[edit]

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. Keeping the "annual" off to bring it into better conformity with the other categories in Category:Sports competition series. bibliomaniac15 02:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These aren't really leagues - cycle racing isn't suited to a league structure - so proposing move to "series". Some are named "tours" (e.g. UCI World Tour being the current highest series), but I haven't proposed Annual cycle racing tours and series‎ (to match other sports in Category:Sports competition series) because individual events are also often called tours (e.g. Tour de France) and this could cause confusion. Severo (talk) 07:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With cycle racing, tours has the meaning of both single races and season-long competitions (comprising many races), so this could serve to confuse. My feeling is that in context, tours primarily relates to single races. (I'm not fussed about losing the "annual".) Severo (talk) 18:37, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Category:Cycle racing series will be good. 94.179.168.56 (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Inter Dominion Hall of Fame[edit]

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. With the entries already in the categories already in list and template forms, the general consensus that the information be retained in some fashion should be considered satisfied. bibliomaniac15 18:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD, WP:OCASSOC)
The Inter Dominion Hall of Fame recognizes horses, drivers and long time officials of the Inter Dominion horse racing competition. Rather than using a subjective selection committee, the official selection criteria automatically admits the following: horses who win 2 times, drivers who win 3 times and those getting a gold medal life time achievement award 1 time. For the first two categories, we have Category:Inter Dominion winners for winning just 1 time so all of these articles are automatically in that overlapping category. (The only exception is their gold medal winning long-time announcer, Bruce Skeggs, who doesn't seem defined by this.) The contents are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete/listify. This is a tricky one, since the Significant People award definitely isn't for multiple winners of anything. If consensus is to listify, the article will need to clearly specify the recognition criteria (as specified here), something which it does not currently do. Grutness...wha? 03:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: I suspect that the gold medal/significant people award could be defining too since it seems to be for long term involvement. We don't have a main article on it yet and, so far, only one recipient article though. Maybe selectively upmerge Bruce Skeggs to Category:Inter Dominion to maintain the association? The article is now updated here.RevelationDirect (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That looks better. And adding him to the category sounds a reasonable compromise, though perhaps making/using a footer template to add to the articles of IDHOF members would be an alternative? Grutness...wha? 14:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to creating a template, but I'll leave that to another editor. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, as {{Interdom HOF}}. Grutness...wha? 04:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've been working halls of fame for awhile, focusing on cowboy, rodeo, and equestrian. This was on my list so I had to step it up in priority due to the CfD. I've cleaned up the article and its members. This category meets WP:DEFINING as stated by that policy:

Biographical articles should be categorized by defining characteristics. As a rule of thumb for main biographies this includes: standard biographical details: year of birth, year of death and nationality the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right or relevant to his acting career. Many people had assorted jobs before taking the one that made them notable; those other jobs should not be categorized.

A hall of fame is defining as a notable characteristic. Who is to say which notable characteristics in an article are defining and which are not when there is more than one? :This hall of fame is mentioned in the lead of the articles, is often the only hall of fame in the article, is sourced to an external website more than any other hall of fame, and is a notable hall of fame. This hall of fame is a notable characteristic, thus defining according to the policy. dawnleelynn(talk) 15:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawnleelynn: Thank you for being willing to rethink you perspective. Would you mind doing a strikethrough (example) on just the word "Keep" above to avoid !voting twice? RevelationDirect (talk) 20:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Why is the notable hall of fame category up for CfD rather than these award categories, which aren't even complete? See Category:Inter Dominion winners and Category:Inter Dominion Trotting winners. There isn't even a category for Category:Inter Dominion Pacing winners. Before I address these categories with any editing or add the missing category, I'd like to know if you have plans to add these to a future CfD. And perhaps these are the ones that should be deleted, rather than the hall of fame categories. Or, perhaps the award categories should be merged too. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)dawnleelynn(talk) 18:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply @Dawnleelynn: I'll reply to your multiple questions above in one place: I have no plans to nominate those winner categories and would encourage those to be improved and, if notability could be established, I would also favor creating an article/section on the gold medal they issue. (Grutness' suggestion for a template also makes sense.) We have respectful disagreements on other HOF nominations but my concern here very specific: this award is automatically given out for receiving other awards (the winners/gold medals) that we already have separate categories for and is therefore redundant and runs afoul of WP:OVERLAPCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply It could cause confusion so let me clarify: The awards that you say we already have categories for are one and same the categories I spoke about in my earlier comment, namely: Category:Inter Dominion winners and Category:Inter Dominion Trotting winners. There isn't even a category for Category:Inter Dominion Pacing winners. So, in one breath you tell me to handle them. And then with another you tell me that these exist and are overlapping. But two of three of these categories actually do not exist. As I stated earlier, the Pacing winners category does not exist. And I could not find a category for the "Inter Dominion Ern Manea Gold Medal" anywhere by that name or by its former name, "(formerly the Inter Dominion Gold Medal)." The two winner categories are the Grand Final races you spoke of as stated in the beginning of the Inter Dominion article. As for WP:OVERLAPCAT, the categories have some overlapping, but it is not "mostly overlapping". And the hall of fame category gives the user a selective overview of the HoF articles; and again there is the question of which notable categories are more defining one; or why is only one allowed? Again, many of these articles' only notable source is the HoF. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Faith I read your last post to mean that I was acting in bath faith and misrepresenting the contents of the categories. I disclosed in my original nomination that there is one HOF inductee with an article (gold medal winner Bruce Skeggs) that doesn't fit under Category:Inter Dominion winners. The lack of a Category:Inter Dominion Pacing winners subcategory just means that those articles should be placed directly under Category:Inter Dominion winners if they're not already, not that I'm misrepresenting that they're already categorized as winners. We obviously disagree on this nomination, which is fine, but let's assume we're both acting good faith, as I did above when you accidentally !voted twice.- RevelationDirect (talk) 22:44, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I don't know about voting twice. Maybe I laid my merge card on the table too soon then if that is considered a vote. My apologies. It was not intentional. As for my reply, it was not an accusation of bad faith or misrepresentation. It was a correction of the the category use. And I did miss addressing the category Category:Inter Dominion winners. First of all, it is not entirely clear all of the purposes of this category. I need a longer time period to assess it. I disagree with you that the pacing winners articles should go here. No, they need their own category; same as the trotting winners have a category. They are both Grand Finals races and should be handled equally.
  • Now, as to the claim of overlap again. I understood you to claim that the selection criteria each had categories already thus the hall of fame was overlapping. Well, that is what I tried to say. They don't all have categories. There is only 1 out of 3 categories that exist. There are two grand finals races. One category for the trotting winners grand finals race exists. No category for the pacing trotting winners exists (if we don't count the generic category), and no gold medal category exists. So, thus only one category can I see. And the case for a gold medal category is not based on just the hall of fame articles, but on all of the articles where the subject has won that award. I'm not really sure what you are trying to say about that gold medal article to tell the truth re: Skeggs. And I definitely am not trying to accuse you of anything, just trying to explain the categories more clearly. I hope this makes more sense this time. Thank you for your patience. dawnleelynn(talk) 23:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's focus on my "claim" of overlap. There are three routes to get into this hall of fame:
So 13 of 14 current articles―or 2 of the 3 routes—for induction are automatically included in a different Wikipedia category. (Thanks for adding 2 of these articles to the HOF category during the nomination; I also added those same articles to the winners cat to maintain the status quo.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Forgive me for saying this, but well you need to check your math a bit. There are five horses in the Category:Inter Dominion winners. The other three are in the Category:Inter Dominion Trotting winners: Captain Sandy, Scotch Notch, and Take A Moment, a category which you did not mention in your three routes to the hall of fame. And once again, I will say that the trotting race is one of the two Inter Dominion Grand Finals races that is listed with the Pacing race as the two Inter Dominion Championships in the HoF selection criteria. At the risk of repeating myself for the third time, there should be a category for each of them. A category called Inter Dominion winners that seems to have pacing winners, and then drivers, and significant people; and then a category of just trotting winners is not consistent. Have a category of people and one of each grand finals races. Or have a category of people and one of both races. But a category of just the one race and then a generic category with people and pacers is confusing to users. This not make sense? Any method of addressing these flaws in the categories should not hurt your overlap contention, in fact they should help it. Btw, Skeggs is not in any category. And the people in the generic winners category are drivers and significant people so Skeggs could go in there too. Regarding the Ern Manea award, Skeggs is not the only one with the award. Ern Manea himself is an inductee, he just doesn't have an article yet. And I did a search and found many equestrians who have been awarded this medal who may someday be inducted. If you want links, just ask. Is not the future part of the consideration? Also regarding the template that has been inserted into the articles, I thought the discussion of the CfD has to finish first before any actions were taken. You would not want me making changes to this categories right now for example. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We actually agree that's it's inconsistent that there are two types of winning races and we have Category:Inter Dominion Trotting winners but not Category:Inter Dominion pacing winners when both would be well populated. No objection if you want to add the pacing subcat now since none of the Category:Inter Dominion winners tree is not tagged in this nomination to listify the overlapping HOF cat. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete -- No need to listify, as the main article is already a list article. This is a category for winners, which falls foul of WP:OCAWARD. 13:57, 19 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
  • Delete/listify. Articles such as Hondo Grattan are sufficiently categorized by Category:Standardbred racehorses bred in Australia etc. I'm not convinced that being in the HoF is a defining characteristic. I've skimmed through dawnleelynn's long (and in places rambling) comments above and not found a convincing reason to keep (i.e. why this needs categories rather than or instead of lists which are a much better way to store info about who has won what - not least, because they can include people/horses for which we don't have an article). DexDor (talk) 18:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This argument about listifying has been used in HoF CfDs many times. It's still just as unwarranted as ever. Categories are not obsolete. They are a different style of navigation, and they do not need to be replaced by lists. And maybe I rambled in some places but it was not because I wanted to. I had to make sure that the race award categories were understood correctly as they are the justification for deleting this hall of fame. I still stand by my argument, which is backed up by policy that "A hall of fame is defining as a notable characteristic" and the other reasons that went with it.dawnleelynn(talk) 18:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What policy are you referring to? We've deleted many categories for HoFs and similar awards where it's very clearly been non-defining (e.g. where many of the articles don't mention it). Can you give one reason why a reader/editor would be better served by looking at a category for award winners than at the corresponding list? DexDor (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the notable characteristic, I said I stand by my argument. I meant the one in my original Keep statement, my first entry into this CfD. It's in a block quote statement near the beginning. The inductees are notable for an article because of this hall of fame. So, according to WP:DEFINING, the hall of fame is defining because notable characteristics are defining characteristics. I never said a reader would be better served by a category. I said that the two are different styles of navigation and neither one is a replacement for the other. I could state that the category does away with the need for a list, but that is not true either. Dang, here we go again. That's it I'm done. I have made my statements. and you ask me how I have come about to be verbose...no more questions. dawnleelynn(talk) 18:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your statement that "The inductees are notable for an article because of this hall of fame." is misleading/incorrect - e.g. the Hondo Grattan article was created in 2006 and the text didn't even mention any HoF until (your edit) a few days ago. DexDor (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just one of the notability guidelines that says notability is a property of the subject: In this guideline, WP:NEXIST it states that, "Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article." "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article." The hall of fame does not need to be in the article to establish it as a suitable and reliable source for the subject.dawnleelynn(talk) 21:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Needed to step to re-analyze. Not taking actions until CfD is resolved. I think that the HoF articles provide these benefits over the list article and the race award categories:
  • The HoF categories show just the inductees with articles, and so the category is a way to navigate them w/o the distractions of red links. The hall of fame, which is high honor award, are interesting enough that readers are interested in reading related articles.
  • The HoF categories divide the inductees by people and horses. Readers are definitely interested in one or the other much of the time so categories provide that navigation.
  • Regarding overlap, the HoF categories provide a way to navigate just the inductees whereas the race award categories have more than double the amount of other articles in them. Readers must click through the articles attempting to locate which ones are the HoF ones. For example, the category Category:Inter Dominion winners has 24 members, but only 7 of those are HoF horse articles. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you actually read WP:NONDEF? In the case of Hondo Grattan (and similar articles) either the sources used by the article's authors didn't mention the HoF or the authors chose not to include it in the article; either way it appears to be non-defining. Incidentally, my ISP blocks the website you've referenced. DexDor (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea what website you are referring to, please specify it. I mean that a hall of fame is usually a lifetime/extremely significant honor compared to other awards such that it is defining. Regarding the mention of the HoF in the articles, I again refer you back to WP:NEXIST. An author does not define the notability of a subject. An article does not define the notability of a subject; sources do. As to your mention of WP:NONDEF, the hall of fame attribute passes the test of whether it is verifiable and notable; it does so it is defining. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's one example used in WP:NONDEF, where the HoF passes the test: "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;". Well it is appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article. And notice it only talks about whether it is appropriate, not whether it is actually in the lead or not. dawnleelynn(talk) 21:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Note that the concepts "notable" and "defining" are clearly different while they are blurred in the above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asian Football Hall of Fame[edit]

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. MER-C 19:04, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD and WP:OCASSOC)
The Asian Football Hall of Fame recognizes professional association football/soccer players from Asia and Australia whose article are already well categorized. Those articles usually mention the award in passing in the articles in a list with other awards, although some don't mention it at all. There is not a lot of information on this award, at least online in English, and I don't think it's still active. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Most Hall of Fame categories fall foul of WP:OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no actual hall of fame in evidence, either physically or virtually. I was only able to find a list of the inductees on the Internet in a news article, Asian Football Confederation announces Hall of Fame inductees from 2014, but no actual hall of fame site. There are only three articles for the hall of fame members on the web as well, also from the inaugural year of 2014. No Internet articles seem to exist for following years. There are only 4 sources for the main article on the hall of fame, which leads to questions about the notability of the subject and whether it deserves an article. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Post Close Note/AFD Nomination User:dawnleelynn has opened an AFD nomination on the main article, Asian Football Hall of Fame, right here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.chped.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_April_15&oldid=953493090"