Knowledge:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 17

1515:- none of these people are known primarily as chess players. None of their articles talk extensively about their chess playing and the only one that covers chess beyond passing mention is Nabokov's and he's already categorized as a chess problemist. As a general rule of thumb I don't think categorizing people based on hobbies is a good idea (and yes I know about 1198:. The club was renamed as Leigh Genesis F.C. in June 2008. Since precedent is that categories should be named after the subject's most recent name, this category and its subcategories should be renamed to reflect the club's new name (goodness, that's a lot of uses of the word "name"!). I am also proposing that 1544:

and perhaps other amateur athletic categories must exist because of the amateur/pro parallel systems. But here, with the exception perhaps of Nabokov, these people are amateur in a different sense, it seems to me. Indeed, as the category description states: "This category is for people who were

707:. I'm just not seeing the utility in splitting off these fifteen films from the herd. The films are already linked together through their own articles and through at least two templates for the Universal and at least two for the Hammer. 1571:

This is not a valid argument. A defining characteristic is one which is important to the individual, not a characteristic for which the individual is notable. (eg 'Alumni of', 'People from',

1536:

Harley has done his homework and makes an excellent point. If one looks at the four articles in this category to date it does seem like this cat generally falls under the banner of

546: 881:

Again, the category of Mathematics articles with no comments subpage is equal to the category of Mathematics articles (8,582 of them!), and the number of Mathematics articles that

42: 37: 369:

Some of the templates in this category have been renamed into lists. Rather than put those pages into a separate category, might be better to just rename this category.

113: 1055: 117: 480: 21: 472: 1008: 1175: 1000: 597: 592:

not only is this by actors, but this is by two actors. I shudder to thing of all the two actor film intersections that could be created.

463: 803: 795: 1203: 1187: 17: 1059: 991: 601: 105: 786: 1352:

Category is now unused, as License tag which categorises here was deprecated and the media migrated to more specific categories.

593: 1225: 153: 716: 672: 1466: 1028:

Overcategorization based on location. What country a pageant contestant is from is defining; what city she's from is not.

1080: 1051: 1658:

Famous is not a good word, and removing it is better, although this is a fickle issue, so it is not the best solution.

1558: 1171: 1163: 357: 101: 1199: 1183: 1470: 522:

Films should not be categorized by who acted in them. There's a precedant for this, but I can't find it right now.

1667: 1650: 1634: 1617: 1600: 1584: 1562: 1528: 1507: 1488: 1458: 1394: 1380: 1361: 1309: 1235: 1213: 1151: 1087: 1071: 1040: 985: 921: 898: 853: 839: 780: 680: 613: 580: 558: 535: 512: 457: 396: 378: 349: 285: 266: 230: 165: 141: 93: 1683: 1630: 1434: 1410: 1290: 1266: 1127: 1103: 961: 937: 756: 732: 653: 629: 609: 438: 414: 387:

is the name of the block), I don't see an issue with calling them something else. But they really are templates.

325: 301: 206: 182: 129: 74: 1682:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1409:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1265:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1102:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

936:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

731:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

628:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

413:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

300:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

181:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1541: 1433:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1289:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1126:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

960:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

755:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

692: 652:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

437:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

324:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

205:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

73:

Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a

1159: 238: 1524: 1324: 1249: 712: 508: 361: 242: 1572: 1554: 696: 684: 1625:

per nom. Occuli is right that someone does not have to be famous for a thing they are categorized under.

1454: 1245: 1147: 981: 917: 776: 345: 226: 1663: 1626: 1485: 1357: 605: 392: 1540:. While we do have some other amateur FOOian categories it's not quite the same thing: for example, 1332: 1647: 1306: 1232: 1210: 1084: 844:

Is there something else I have to do to get a decision on whether this category should be deleted?

669: 454: 374: 90: 1520: 1516: 1376: 1315: 894: 849: 835: 708: 504: 262: 885:

have comments subpages is equal to zero. That's because we no longer use comments subpages per

576: 531: 281: 161: 137: 1580: 1503: 1450: 1143: 1067: 977: 913: 772: 554: 341: 222: 1659: 1613: 1597: 1482: 1353: 388: 383:

So long as pages can still incorporate the templates with {{Unicode chart foobar}} (Where

1646:. We don't categorize people by hobby or interest, which this seems to be in this case. 1229: 1207: 370: 1389: 1372: 1030: 890: 886: 845: 831: 827: 258: 1643: 1537: 830:

says that comment subpages are depreciated, so this category is no longer needed.

569: 524: 277: 157: 133: 1576: 1499: 1063: 550: 567:

BAM!! There it is - thanks Occuli. And the important thing is that I'm right.

1609: 253:

Both names would make sense but the title of the corresponding is (currently)

1206:, since they are for players of the same club, only under different names. – 1427: