Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 13

2554:

that is what internal links are for. There is something of a can of worms here, and I am wary. However, I can see that there will be some exceptions: people like playwrights or novelists might, for example, warrant a category that covers their works where those works merit an individual article - Shakespeare, Dickens etc. The difference with these people, though, is that the works (plays, novels) are not usually an intrinsic part of the person's biography; their creation may be, and their critical reception too, but not the works themselves, and it would be wrong to try to summarise, say, the plot of Macbeth as part of the article on Shakespeare. In the case of the cricketers here, fundamentally the articles are expanded parts of the biography, and I think the base biographical article is the thing that they should usually link back into. Bradman may be an exception, but then Bradman was exceptional and had influence beyond cricket. The others? I'm not convinced, and certainly not about the lesser lights on this list.

1453:-- This is an unsatisfactory category, sicne it is only categorising FA Cup finals, at least at present. Furhtermore, either name is unsatisfactory, because of the date 1923 being included. This does match the article, but I would suggest that the article shoudl aloso be renamed. I note that the putative parent category "Wembley Stadium (1923)" does not exist, so that this category is orphaned. There may be some point in segregating events at the old stadoum from those at the present one, but I am not wholly convinced. I certainly see no point in separating events (or matches) at the stadium from a category on the stadoium itself, which can never have more than one articel in it, namely the one that should be the amin article for a matches or events category. 2482:. Arthur Morris. Ray Lindwall, Keith Miller and Neil Harvey would serious candidates for an all-time Australian best ever XI, Hassett and Johnson both captained Australia. I take SGGHs point about Hamence and Saggers though. Secondly, how is it relevent how well they are known. Having a category isn't supposed to be about "merit" (what, you have to earn a category?) or a sign of how well known someone is, but a grouping of related articles around a theme. It says nothing about how renowned someone is, but merely marks that there is a series of articles substantially about you. As for the Invincibles, this name is well attested in the parent article and is the common name for the team in Australia. -- 3277:. While "Vincentian" or "Saint Vincentian" is often used to mean a subject from anywhere in SVG, it can also have a more limited meaning by referring to a subject specifically from the island of Saint Vincent. (It can also be misunderstood as being limited in this way even though the user may mean it in the broader sense.) Thus, "Vincentian" is ambiguous and can have the result of excluding subjects of the SVG when they are actually from the Grenadines as opposed to Saint Vincent. (This reason is similar to the rationale for using "Trinidad and Tobago" or "Saints Kitts and Nevis" as the adjective rather than "Trinidadian" or "Kittitian".) 2151:. Each of these categories only contains two articles: the main article of the same name and the article named "NAME SURNAME with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" (i.e., "The Invincibles" team). Since in each case both articles should reference each other, the categories add nothing to navigatability or grouping of articles. These are not like 2411:

don't exactly make others' "opinions feel welcome" (opinions have feelings?). I find that if you can't relax and laugh at yourself, you may find life a bit boring. It's just a CfD in WP, it's not about life and death issues. (Though I do know cricket fans who do act like it is ...) I apologize if my

2353:

There are a couple of players there with only one or two Test appearances, or none at all. I don't think these people will ever accumulate enough articles to warrant this kind of category, unless it later transpires they were aliens or something... Ron Hamence and Ron Saggers come to mind as players

3291:

of organizations. Using "Vincentian" could be misunderstood as referring to this group or something or someone else in the Vincentian Family. (This reason is similar to one of the reasons we use "Dominican Republic" and "Dominica" as adjectives rather than "Dominican", the "Dominicans" also being a

2209:

At the pace that YellowMonkey works I anticipate them being populated much quicker than that! That is also a false comparision; the category was substantially populated shortly after creation, with YM creating multiple articles very quickly in July, with no new articles added to the category after

2191:

was created on 8 July 2008 and contains 8 articles, which works out to around 1 new article per month. If that rate holds, it will take 90 months (7½ years) for each of these categories to have 8 articles each. I suggest therefore that each be deleted without prejudice to re-creation when it has 8

1702:

Note especially that the almost identical schemes for the current memberships of the lower houses of both Britain and the U.S. have also been deleted. These types of nominations are repeated fairly frequently so I don't think I need to go into a lot of detail to further explain why these "current"

2553:

qualify for a category, so it might, in time, apply to most cricketers who've appeared in several series, most politicians who've fought several elections, footballers who played in different World Cups, Olympic champions, etc etc. I don't think that's what categories are for, and I do think that

343:

An individual might think of it as "defining" some part of themselves, but it's not defining to the rest of the world. If you did a poll of world citizens that asked—"what do Steve Martin and Bruce Lee have in common?", "majored in philosophy in university" would not be a very popular answer, I'm

3557:

is not on par with having most of the other diseases/disabilities that have categories. People don't typically die of gastritis, and it doesn't affect lives in the way being an amputee, having paraplegia, or being blind does. See related CfDs that deleted other "medical condition" categories for

2646:, this would be a key consideration in whether these extra Cats are worth keeping or not. I'm already inclined to a Keep, based on how Miller and Bradman have developed, but the answer to this question could well persuade me either way and be useful to other readers too. (NB other users may find 3394:

with a cat this small and its likely movement it may not be a big deal, but I don't want it claimed as a precedent to take shortcut names that may refer to part of a country, e.g., using Czech when we mean Czechoslovak; using Bosnian, Trinidadian, per the examples (3) in Good Olfactory's list.

3298:

We probably want to avoid using "Saint Vincentian and Grenadinian". While using "People from Saint Vincent and the Grenadines" could be done, renaming to use the name of the country as the adjective as in "Fooian XXX" would result in conformity with how other similar "problematic" nationality

1729:

or something similar. In Britain, the many articles on MPs are being recategorised by Parliament (though with dates not ordinals). I do not see why this solution should not be used in Canada. The precise form of the name needs to be worked out by Canadians (and I am British).

353:

Probably true, but that seems to me the backward way to approach writing an encyclopedia. If we only included information that's obvious, and common knowledge, it would seem to undermine the motivation for writing the thing in the first place. (llamabr not logged in at work).

2588:- he definitely does deserve a separate category - not so much because he was the greatest cricketer ever but because there are likely to be numerous articles relating to him. On a related note, however, the parent category is incorrectly named. The article is at 2210:

July, i.e around 8 per month. I see no reason to think that there categories cannot be populated quickly. Indeed, YM has created around a dozen of the ""NAME SURNAME with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" articles in the past week. --

2671:- seems like a bizarre way of making unnecessary multi-part articles. Difficult to envisage that most of these names actually merit anything beyond one good article each on Knowledge - possibly on a cricket-specific website it would be different. 258:, as I'd guess most of those people don't even work in a field that's related to Princeton. Rather, it's an historical fact about those individuals that binds them together, and that I figured some readers would find interesting. But whatever. 253:

I created this new category, as the previous criticism before was in calling the category 'notable philosophy majors', as that's redundant (since notability is implied, I guess). Anyway, I take it that it's just as interesting a category as

3358:: This is a small category and could do with additions. Without this change then its difficult to see where SVG but not St Vincent would go. I do not find reason two presuasive however as the confusion will still happen if one is renamed. 1411:- for info, the user who created the category under discussion has now created a new category at the name I suggested and begun moving the articles across, without waiting for this CfD to finish. I have no idea how we proceed now..... -- 2688:, this is not an AFD on the individual articles as implied by HeartofaDog. Given the existence of the articles, the catagories are a useful way of grouping the articles. Nothing useful would be achieved by deleting the catagories.-- 1912:

is an enormous one. There are subcategories by party, but I think it needs to be split into categories by state, perhaps also with a federal category for those in the Federal institutions. Accordingly (as a start to that) rename to

3030: 1389:

as is and would veer even closer if it were expanded to include non-sporting events. A more serious issue is that of category clutter, especially if this is expanded to include all events by venue. To give just one example, Cher's

1428:- I suggest that, once the creator of the category has moved all of them over, the original category be speedied as an empty category (or as having been blanked by its creator) and that this CfD be changed to cover the new one. – 3039: 328:

and many others. It might be that studying philosophy doesn't prepare one explicitly for a career (as would studying, e.g., business), but rather causes one to be a certain type of person -- such as those in this category.

1955:

Is someone going to go through all the Indian politicians and split them up according to this schema or is this going to be a one-off to give apparent extra weight to this set of candidates among the many? If not, upmerge.

2454:... Pele? Beckenbauer? Maradonna? George Best? Magic Johnson? Beckham? Rod Laver? Sampras? Michael Johnson? McEnroe? These are not even well-known cricketers apart from the legendary Bradman.) I'm also very doubtful about 2976: 1744:

That seems like a reasonable solution, if this is wanted in category form. I'm fine with deletion or renaming to that. The information is in the list, so I'm not sure if the duplicate category would be wanted or not.

713:

I agree. In hindsight, the category was a bad idea. I am in the process of creating a new article into which that lone article will be merged, and would still fit better in the two aforementioned categories anyway.

3219: 2967: 3210: 2702:

I too am looking at the cats, not the articles. But the two are working together - the existence of the category is what makes it possible to create clumps of linked articles for subjects who only warrant one.

1703:

categories have been deleted. We don't generally categorize "current" vs. "former" due to maintenance issues—and if fully implemented it could expand large part of the category system by 2-fold, etc., etc.

3021: 2958: 2242: 2239: 3012: 2245: 2221: 3084: 2235: 3165: 3048: 947: 780: 691:

Small (one article) and little potential for growth, as it is unlikely that many other Loudoun County fire-rescue services are notable enough for articles. The one article should be upmerged to

3192: 3066: 3669:--Clearly a NN medical condition. It is unlikely ever to be important enough to be a notable characteristic. A few of the others listed may have been deleted on grounds of verifiability. 2391:

Could this place be any more of a clique? No doubt this will be defended as humour, but it certainly does a good job of alienating other voices and making their opinions feel unwelcome. --

2270:

since it was created 3 weeks ago and there's still only two articles in it. Anyway, none of this explains why we should keep the categories before they are needed, which they aren't, since

3075: 2985: 1882: 1231: 3618: 3568: 3563: 2814: 1651: 1641: 1636: 1631: 1626: 904:- The category is now well populated, in accord with its original intent -- grouping together lists for both theologians and scholars, from across the religious spectrum. So I suggest 3648: 3633: 3628: 3623: 3573: 1646: 1621: 1616: 1611: 1370: 1350:. It was never called "the Wembley Stadium", only "Wembley Stadium", so the "the" has to go. Additionally, changing "matches" to "events" would allow the inclusion of concerts, etc. 169: 42: 37: 3643: 3638: 3147: 1695: 1603: 470: 3608: 3603: 3598: 3593: 3588: 3578: 3183: 3129: 3003: 1690: 3613: 3583: 3174: 3057: 1685: 1673: 1667: 1661: 1656: 1394:

played for 7,825 performances in some 4,500 venues (OK, I'm exaggerating. Slightly.). Imagine what the category list would look like if this events by venue scheme took root.

3138: 3111: 3102: 1679: 3156: 2994: 1088: 1054: 3120: 3373: 3312: 3093: 2949: 1369:. I'm not sure what utility there is in grouping events by the venue in which they were held. I know it's common for us to delete groupings of venues by event, e.g., 1977:. No reason to categorize by the year they were candidates. If there are no term limits, a victor can be listed for many different years. Clearly not defining. 2496:. Four are regarded by the world governing body to be in the top 55 players of all time. Lindwall, Bradman and Miller were in the 10 inaugural members of the 2159:, the category about the 1948 Australian cricket team in England. It may have been a good team, but we certainly don't need a category for each member of it. 2802: 2501: 2634:

Perhaps it would be pertinent to ask what redlinks would realistically turn blue to populate each of these Cats. Taking the example of arguably one of the

1578: 2403:"This place"? (Cyberspace?) I dunno though, the rationale for keeping these that has been provided is looking awfully "clique-ish", and comments like 3259:. I am proposing that all uses of "Vincentian" as an adjective/demonym be replaced with "Saint Vincent and the Grenadines" for the following reasons: 3201: 2155:(another member of the team), which actually is useful in grouping more than 2 relevant articles. All contents of these could be simply upmerged to 1570: 1844: 21: 1840: 3324: 1561: 3328: 3300: 1726: 696: 3026: 1759:

unless someone wants to rework the entire category to conform to the British MP cats. Note: as far as I know, only the UK have this set up.

355: 255: 3035: 799: 3308: 3304: 1974: 1914: 1822: 923: 17: 3246: 3228: 2642:, I'm interested to see a few article titles that would in due course be likely to be appended to the 2 already in the Cat. Given that 858:

Two Muslim lists that had been part of the category were removed by the nominator just prior to this CFD. (They've now been restored.)

230:

Btw, I thought it would be good to let this CFD run, since Llamabr evidently wasn't persuaded that the previous CFD was authoritative.

3316: 2972: 1104: 1100: 1071: 3237: 1657:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_Members_of_the_United_States_Senate_Committee_on_Armed_Services

1622:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_14#Category:Current_female_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

3332: 2963: 1878: 1335: 692: 3206: 1084: 1050: 2798: 2451: 3266: 3017: 2954: 1083:. If we want to rename this category, we'd better rename other Southern Hemisphere TC seasons' categories together: for example, 3008: 2450:– this is no reflection whatever on the quality of the articles but hardly any sportspeople merit an eponymous category (see eg 1096: 1092: 1391: 1339: 565: 3197: 3080: 663: 2412:

laughter offended you. I thought it was better than me laughing behind users' backs, and I tried to muffle it, after all ...

880: 803: 3161: 3044: 116: 3188: 3062: 1696:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_7#Category:LGBT_politicians_from_the_United_States_currently_in_office

1668:

Knowledge:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_June_26#Category:Current_members_of_the_United_States_House_of_Representatives

671: 320:

As for being 'non-defining': I don't know, not to you maybe (since you weren't a philosophy major), but that's not the way

458: 144:- Someone's major in college might be worth noting in their bio, but it really isn't a suitable basis for categorization. 3521: 3071: 2981: 1877:

since we typically don't categorize people for being candidates (except for the most prominent political positions, like

654: 2129: 124: 3763: 3740: 3723: 3699: 3678: 3659: 3505: 3438: 3421: 3404: 3384: 3367: 3348: 2931: 2872: 2849: 2826: 2790: 2731: 2712: 2697: 2680: 2663: 2622: 2604: 2580: 2563: 2535: 2521: 2487: 2471: 2435: 2416: 2396: 2384: 2374: 2358: 2339: 2311: 2278: 2253: 2229: 2215: 2196: 2182: 2163: 2062: 2003: 1986: 1965: 1947: 1926: 1898: 1889: 1864: 1830: 1768: 1749: 1739: 1715: 1553: 1494: 1479: 1462: 1435: 1420: 1403: 1377: 1359: 1325: 1266: 1243: 1226:

following discussion on redirecting after no sources to indicate notability have been found following this discussion:

1175: 1116: 1073: 1040: 981: 960: 935: 917: 896: 867: 850: 827: 788: 726: 703: 648: 589: 555: 496: 477: 444: 386: 363: 348: 338: 313: 296: 267: 248: 239: 225: 211: 202: 184: 160: 107: 101: 3143: 1935: 1909: 1873: 1190: 569: 3179: 3125: 2999: 2549:. I'm not convinced of this. The corollary could be that anyone whose biography is splittable into distinct sections 3529: 3512: 3170: 3053: 3756: 3215: 3134: 3107: 3098: 2865: 2526:

This has no bearing whatever on the categories under consideration. Johnlp (below) gives a good rationale on this.

1239: 884: 838: 806: 3152: 2990: 1450: 3778: 3478: 3454: 3242: 3224: 3116: 2912: 2888: 2771: 2747: 2589: 2043: 2019: 1808: 1784: 1534: 1510: 1306: 1282: 1181: 1156: 1132: 1021: 997: 766: 742: 629: 605: 536: 512: 425: 401: 74: 3777: