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:speedily deleted (G6). – FayenaticLondon 14:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a category but rather an autobiographical article about a non-notable musician. Ifnord (talk) 22:34, 18 November 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry in this category, and I don't see any reasonable prospect for expansion. Ivanvector (talk) 19:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unlikely that this topic will gather an article base that requires category navigation. SFB 22:49, 19 November 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Consistency. All other categories in Category:City timelines are named this way, and most articles in the categories are "a timeline of the history of ...". Ivanvector (talk) 15:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is "history" adding to this category name? A timeline by default will cover a historical period. I would prefer to keep these all at "city timelines". SFB 22:35, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that too, I just think all the subcategory names should be consistent. Renaming them all to Category:XXXX city timelines (without "history") is probably better, but more work. Ivanvector (talk) 00:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should be named optimally, not based upon the weight of editing work (which can be bot automated anyway). SFB 19:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency, but I would also support a future proposal to rename all timelines categories by removing 'history'.Marcocapelle (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see the need to add "history" to the names. Many of the timelines in the categories have events from recent times such as 2011. Re@wakentalk 23:38, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hence the "alternate proposal" below. Ivanvector (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the above discussion, the current naming convention is poor and is not the best option. I propose an overhaul. First, the main category should be renamed to "Timelines of cities" to match the format used in the wider tree (e.g. Category:Histories of capitals). Secondly, I propose we use the country names rather than nationality adjectives to match how we categorise places (e.g. Category:Cities in the United States not Category:American cities). Thirdly, the phrase "history" as redundant because a timeline by definition must cover a certain period of time (or history) – it should be removed. @Marcocapelle and Ivanvector: What say ye? SFB 19:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate - yeah, this works for me. I made one minor change (cities in United Kingdom -> cities in the United Kingdom). Ivanvector (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternate. -- M2545 (talk) 22:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer alternative over original proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:39, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Suport Alternate' clearer than current categories or original nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:52, 24 November 2014 (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.
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.
Delete Vague subjective category. SFB 22:33, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Lenticel(talk) 05:11, 19 November 2014 (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.
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, unopposed nomination. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:45, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Is there any reason this is named how it is, rather than named after the article Shoal? Sandbank redirects to Shoal, and they are basically the same thing. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:41, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please nominate the 3 subcats at the same time; if the rename is good for one, it is good for all the categories. Hmains (talk) 05:49, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily, due to possible issues of MOS:ENGVAR. I'd prefer to keep the nomination of this head category separate. If the rename goes through, then the subcategories could be pursued. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:03, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are these categories supposed to represent all shoals, or only the sandy kind (and not the gravelly or rocky kind?) -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think all kinds. Stubber is included, which is described as "a stony sandbank". There are others, like Charleston Bar, that are just described as "shoals" without a description of the composition. It would make sense to include all kinds here—what is significant here is the type of landform it is, not whether it is made of sand vs. rocks. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:46, 19 November 2014 (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.
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:no consensus. Should be revisited if parent cats are changed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with other specific sport player categories, these should be gathered at top country subdivision level (province in the case of Turkey). I propose the categories be renamed to suit that purpose and the contents be additionally placed into the current Sportspeople from [CITY] parents. SFB 01:17, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename The a.m. rationale is plausible. --CeeGee 06:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these categories should not be merged, they should be deleted. What reliable sources are being used to decide where a person is 'from'? Is the criteria for inclusion that they were born there, lived there as a child, lived there as an adult, what? It's madness. GiantSnowman 13:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: Any contents which do not have a reference for where the person is from should not be added to the category. I don't see the category form itself problematic - the "from" is intentionally vague so we can include people born/lived/largely associated with a place in one category. If you don't feel this is right then please nominate Category:People by city for deletion. SFB 22:39, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the basis I see no reason why footballers can't be categorised by major city (particularly ones with a strong football pedigree). It is preferable to the ugly compromise of creating new 'province' categories (which I suspect in this case would simply be the city footballers categorised under a different name). Sionk (talk) 15:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that most of the contents will be largely identical for these three provinces (as the provincial captials comprise much of the population), but that is less the case for most other provinces, hence why it's worth creating such a structure for consistency. It also avoids the ambiguous question of whether the above categories means strictly from the city or from the wider metropolitan area as well (which is roughly the province anyway). SFB 22:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose to the nomination, per Sionk. Strong oppose to the alternative of upmerging to Category:Turkish footballers because this category already contains > 1000 articles and rather needs to be diffused based on whatever relevant criteria. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 21 February 2015 (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.
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:no consensus. We may be able to build consensus to upmerge a few of these, but that will have to be worked out with individual nominations, if at all. --BDD (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following on from the logic of the discussion on Brooklyn basketball players, categories on players of specific sports should not narrow down beyond the top level national subdivision (county-level for the above categories). We should only narrow down category groupings when they are sufficiently large enough to warrant it. That is not the case here. I encourage the building of a populated footballers by county level of categories at Category:British footballers by county and parallel diffusion to sportspeople categories for lower level places like cities. The same logic applies for non-British nominations also. SFB 00:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the basis you can't tar all these categories with the same brush. Several are major UK cities (for example Leeds and Sheffield} with large numbers of articles categorised within them. I agree, it's probably over zealous to categorise footballers from small towns like Hitchen or Dacorum and I'd support upmerging of such categories. I don't think it's helpful to group all these categories together as if they all suffered the same problem. They don't. Sionk (talk) 01:46, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: Can you elaborate on the categories you think do need merging and your reasoning for upmerging? SFB 22:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It makes little sense at the moment. The nomination should be thrown out and re-proposed with sensible groupings of categories. Overall, if we're not categorising footballers by place, I see little purpose in categorising Hertfordshire or West Sussex footballers either. It would just be an ugly compromise. I see some merit in categorising footballers by large city - for example Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds - because they are each associated strongly with major football teams amd will have excessively large "Sportspoeple from... " categories.Sionk (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support all – these are trivial intersections, some more trivial than others. Oculi (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Take out Leeds and Sheffield form the nomination and I'd agree. But it's farcical to argue that these places are "trivial"! Sionk (talk) 12:37, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had in mind WP:TRIVIALCAT (the trivial intersection bit of it) but WP:OCLOCATION is a better fit: "avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics". Oculi (talk) 12:56, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'd still argue that the nomination is fundamentally flawed and should be amended. Majorca is Spain's largest island while West Yorkshire is a political boundary in England that has only existed since 1974 ("Footballers from Yorkshire" would be better). It's a hotchpotch of categories lumped together for no consistent rationale. Sionk (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these categories should not be merged, they should be deleted. What reliable sources are being used to decide where a person is 'from'? Is the criteria for inclusion that they were born there, lived there as a child, lived there as an adult, what? It's madness. GiantSnowman 13:29, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never seen a hard and fast rule. It depends, like every other "FOO from... " category. With that argument, you'd end up deleting all the "Sportspeople from... " categories too. In support of your comment I'd agree many places of birth for footballer articles seems bit suspect, often from some sort of footie stats website where biographical info is secondary to the player stats. Sionk (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all - If it not defining to be from Oldham then that is equally true of being from Greater Manchester. Either leave as they are or delete then all and define them as Category:English footballers.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per past precedents like this[1]....William 16:06, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Selective support for merge - only ifWP:SMALLCAT applies. Otherwise I would suggest to first have a more thorough discussion on how to categorize footballers at all. I can imagine that categorization by city may not be the most meaningful type of categorization, but some diffusion criteria have to come in place for it, or otherwise we'll end up with huge categories that are of nobody's benefit. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2015 (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:Footballers from Barnet (London borough)[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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 11:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following on from the logic of the discussion on Brooklyn basketball players, categories on players of specific sports should not narrow down beyond the top level national subdivision (i.e. Greater London here). Articles are more usefully grouped at this level and in parallel to a lower level "sportspeople" category (i.e. Category:Sportspeople from Barnet (London borough)) The fact that the aforementioned category doesn't/didn't exist shows this is a structure getting ahead of itself. We should only narrow down category groupings when they are sufficiently large enough to warrant it. That is not the case here. I encourage the building of a central Greater London footballers category and new sportspeople categories for London boroughs. SFB 00:32, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, purely on the basis that the there will be very many hundreds of London born footballers and the population of each of these boroughs is extremely large. For example a quick search on Wikipedia for "footballer Hammersmith" yeilds very many dozen articles which can be categorized for this borough. There is very clear scope for populating these categories. the population of Greater London must be circa 8 million and an un-split Category:Footballers from Greater London could rapidly become unwieldly. Sionk (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Sionk. Although there are only 97 articles in total in the categories you proposed, the population in Greater London could lead to a massive category. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 03:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge The oppose votes use flawed logic that "London is a big place, so these will be big categories". Pure WP:OR. Currently these are very small sub-categories that should be upmerged to the parent. IF there is an influx of hundreds and hundreds of footballers from one of the boroughs, THEN create the sub-catergories, ELSE do not. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:48, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge – there is no significance in which borough a footballer comes from, and so it is a trivial intersection. It doesn't matter that some categories are large. Oculi (talk) 12:26, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't get that rationale at all. If there is no significance to where someone comes from, why do we have any "People from... " categories at all? Why single out footballers for upmerging (particularly in a country where football is the national sport)? Sionk (talk) 12:34, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed you haven't got it. Where a person is from is indeed defining, being a footballer is defining, but being a footballer from a particular borough is not defining. There is no need to form intersections of all valid categories, otherwise we would have 'footballers born in 1980' etc. (I don't personally think the county a footballer is from is much better. I haven't seen any articles on 'footballers from London'.) Oculi (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - these categories should not be merged, they should be deleted. What reliable sources are being used to decide where a person is 'from'? Is the criteria for inclusion that they were born there, lived there as a child, lived there as an adult, what? It's madness. GiantSnowman 13:30, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge IMO, the fact that a category would have a lot of people in it is not a reason to split it up (Category:English footballers has thousands of articles). I also agree with the comments about borough being relatively trivial in comparison with the fact that someone is from London (when I tell people my hometown, I don't tell them the ward). I would also rather the merged category be simply named Category:Footballers from London. Number57 15:21, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, No improvement. To categorize them as from Greater London is not only inaccurate but flawed logic. If it is not significant or defining that a footballer is from a particular borough, then it is no more defining or of no more significance that he is from Greater London. Would rather see them all deleted than this and have them simply as Category:English footballers.--Egghead06 (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The result would be too unwieldy. If we are going to make a change we should have a full upmerge to Sportspeople from Foo and Footballers from London. If we are deaing with a period before Greater London was created, they should be in Essex, Surrey, Middlesex or Kent. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:45, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge - We should "avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics". As Oculi states above, "where a person is from is indeed defining, being a footballer is defining, but being a footballer from a particular borough is not defining". The claim that the same argument could be extended to London as a whole is true, but misses the point; affiliation with London (an international city) is more significant than affiliation with a particular borough, and so it is the lesser of two evils. The concern that the resulting category will be too large is not only premature but also secondary—some categories will be large by virtue of their scope (e.g., Category:1980 births) and should not be diffused. "Navigation" is not a justification for trivial categorization. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No two comments - firstly, as I have stated, moving them to London is inaccurate. Many are from Essex, Middlesex etc as boundaries have changed. Secondly, as any Londoner will tell you, it is of some significance which part of London you come from. There is much rivalry between those from North and South of the river. Would suggest we don't want the lesser of two evils. We want no evils and accuracy - don't we?--Egghead06 (talk) 07:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We want no evils and accuracy - Yes, but we cannot achieve a full upmerge to Category:English footballers in this discussion. :) Your statement about rivalries is absolutely true, but I would think it applies more to fans and less to professional players who typically play for multiple clubs during their career. I do not think the move to London would add any new inaccuracy since the current titles also identify the footballers as being from a "London borough". -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:19, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then it all depends on how we handle the historical element. For example a player born in East Ham in 1930 is from Essex and not from London or any borough. A player born in 1970 in the same place is from London and from the Borough of Newham. Maybe the problem is that they were incorrectly categorized? In that case moving them to players from London only compounds an inaccuracy. As for rivalries, even a brief read of Millwall F.C.-West Ham United F.C. rivalry indicates such rivalries run much deeper than fans and are based on location within the city.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I can't bear it when a CfD process in good faith takes precedent from one topic and unthinkingly seeks to apply it to another to the detriment of our users. There are so many ways the current subdivisions can usefully aid research, some of which have been touched on above. Greater London is a whacking big place; its 2011 population estimate of >8,000,000 makes it larger than about 150 countries, according to our list. And Egghead makes some excellent points. --Dweller (talk) 10:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Selective support for merge - only ifWP:SMALLCAT applies. Otherwise I would suggest to first have a more thorough discussion on how to categorize footballers at all. I can imagine that categorization by borough may not be the most meaningful type of categorization, but some diffusion criteria have to come in place for it, or otherwise we'll end up with huge categories that are of nobody's benefit. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2015 (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.
