Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 22

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as proposed, clear rename but proposed had 8 to 4/5 with one ambig rename. Syrthiss 15:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal reflects the intended function of the category. The existing name is much too ambiguous. Hawkestone 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Hawkestone 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom, if that's the category's remit. David Kernow 08:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Categorisation of British MPs by national origin or my location of constituency should be avoided. Bhoeble 12:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Members of the pre-union English Parliament. Otherwise 1707 looks like an arbitrary date. David | Talk 14:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. The alternative proposal is only more meaningful for people who know the relevant history. If it was a round number readers might assume it to be arbitary, but they are unlikely to do so with a date like 1707. Osomec 16:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Members of the Parliament of England. Parliament of England is the standard name; "pre-1707" or "pre-Union" are redundant (there is no "post-1707" nor "post-Union" Parliament of England... or not yet anyway). --Mais oui! 16:47, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thoughts I agree with Mais oui!. David | Talk 17:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there an English parliament...?  Regards, David Kernow 17:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not any more, but there was one between 1265 and 1707, and it is this to which the category refers. David | Talk 19:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ahh, okay. Thanks! David Kernow 20:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Many people (eg Americans) won't otherwise understand that this isn't the category for members of the Parliament of which Tony Blair is a member. ReeseM 01:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Members of the Parliament of England as per Mais oui! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valiantis (talk • contribs)
• Rename Category:Members of the Parliament of England, per above. (With a big category description at the top for those that don't know the difference between English and British...) JRP 16:46, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. You don't see a category description until you open the category so the name of the category should be clear in itself if possible. Sumahoy 02:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Members of the Parliament of England as the correct name. I don't think it'll confuse many people looking for Category:British MPs because they won't find it. —Blotwell 03:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That makes no sense as it is a subcategory. Carina22 05:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as originally proposed There is a similar Scottish category, which I have just nominated for renaming and that has to have a period designation to distinguish it from the one for the recently created dissolved parliament, so this category should have a period designation to match. Carina22 05:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These business figures are not known for their Catholicism—most of the articles do not even mention the religion of the subject. Please delete. choster 22:29, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Hawkestone 23:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Could only include those who had identified themselves as such, which still wouldn't be worth a cat. Deizio 01:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I see no point in having this as a subcategory Where ^(talk)> 16:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An intersection of only marginal relevance. ReeseM 01:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, some reasons why it's more than marginally relevant are if you want to boycott/persecute the named business people, if you're a conspiracy theorist looking to build lists, or if you're a Roman Catholic and want to ask successful RCs to provide you with a head start in business. What the hey. Keep. Colonel Tom 13:22, 24 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Facilitating the activities listed by Colonel Tom isn't part of its remit. Osomec 14:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete arbitrary intersection of occupation and religion. If it is so necessary to subdivide the religion categories, do so by nationality, as the way in which a religion is practiced/observed actually varies from one country to another, but not from one occupation to another. Postdlf 23:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please also note that the previously deleted "Roman Catholic actors" category is still hovering around on deletion review, currently at 8 in favor of undeletion versus 5 against. The arguments for have been based on 1) the asserted need to subdivide the religion categories (which is better done by nationality) and 2) the existence of other religion-by-occupation subcategories (though they are being gradually CFD'd). There are several other Roman Catholic subcats that should likewise be listed for deletion. Postdlf 23:45, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Information may be usefull, but a whole this catagory is unneeded --T-rex 17:22, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this is kept, the articles should have documented evidence of Catholicism much like the standard in the gay/lesbian/etc. categories/lists. Carlossuarez46 23:12, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Carina22 05:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:02, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to standard form as per naming conventions. Darwinek 20:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Choalbaton 21:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 08:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention. Colonel Tom 13:27, 24 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Rename does this even need a vote? --T-rex 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Beauharnais → Category:House of Beauharnais
Category:Bonaparte → Category:House of Bonaparte

To follow pattern of other noble houses; I realise there was a CfR vote on Category:Bonaparte only recently, but I only recall now what I meant to suggest then. David Kernow 17:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposer. David Kernow 17:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The existing form is too terse. Bhoeble 17:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Where ^(talk)> 16:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both and similar as above. Colonel Tom 13:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Rename per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 14:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The names of articles for NY state routes was a combination of articles named NYS highway and NYS route. Several editors have been coordinating standardizing the article names as "New York State Route X" where "X" is the route number. All of the "highway" articles have been moved to "route" names and all have been categorized under the category Category New York State routes. The Category:New York state highways now contains no entries. --Censorwolf 16:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for use as {{categoryredirect}}; "highways" is used for nearly every other subcategory of Category:State highways of the United States so there are bound to be stray creations in the future. -choster 04:05, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It should be "highways" like the rest; in fact, it includes many that don't have "Route" in their names, but rather "Parkway" and various other things. Gene Nygaard 04:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Placing them in "route" just because most of the rest have some invisible designation with a State Reference Route is silly. I say invisible, because not only do they not have anything about this in their Wikipedia article names, they also do not have those numbers on the highway signage itself and they do not have those names and numbers in anybody's common usage. That's jsut some internal classification scheme of no great relevance. Gene Nygaard 05:01, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mass Rename, several categories in this Category:State highways of the United States seem schizoid, with Delaware, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and a few others nonconforming to the overall naming. In some cases, the highways seem to be a subsubcategory. "State highway" and "Highway" are terms of art, and I'd suggest the entire kit-and-caboodle be renamed consistently with "State highways of...." -- William Allen Simpson 14:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Fooish princes. Syrthiss 14:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cambodian princes → Category:Princes of Cambodia
Category:English & British princes → Category:Princes of England and Britain]]  PS Should this category be split? and move those of (Great) Britain to Category:Princes of Great Britain
Category:Japanese princes → Category:Princes of Japan
Category:Prussian princes → Category:Princes of Prussia
Category:Swedish princes → Category:Princes of Sweden

OR

1. Category:English & British princes → Category:English princes and move those of (Great) Britain to Category:Princes of Great Britain;
   
2. Keep all others above intact and rename remaining "Princes of X" subcategories to "Xish princes".

To follow pattern of other Category:Princes subcategories (and, I believe, Wikipedia's naming policies). David Kernow 15:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC) To introduce some sort of consistency (save "Princes of Great Britain", I suppose). David Kernow 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as proposer. David Kernow 15:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There have been "Princes of England", "Princes of Great Britain" and "Princes of the United Kingdom", but no one has ever been a "Prince of Britain". The only way I can see to achieve consistency without inaccuracy is to rename them all to "Fooish princes", which is in line with the occupational categories. Bhoeble 17:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree re "Prince of Britain" and also am more keen simply to establish some consistency rather than a set name pattern, so have recast proposal as choice. Vote away!  Thanks, David Kernow 17:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Fooish princes as with other occupations. Sumahoy 19:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Fooish princes Osomec 14:23, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all in Category:Princes to Fooish Princes as far as possible, for sake of consistency. David Kernow 22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep, no rename. Syrthiss 14:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of articles and subcategories in this category are best served in other categories - most articles are already in different categories rendering this category as clutter. Some are race series (eg. Category:GP2), including one which the FIA has no organising role in (Category:A1_Grand_Prix); FIA Super Licence is F1 specific so no value is added in this category; and Group A and Group N explain nothing about the FIA so no value is added from being in this category. Deleting all of these would leave only three articles, which I would suggest can be placed in the Category:Auto racing organizations category without any specifity being lost in this. Asp 08:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP good as a supercategory. 132.205.45.148 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• COmment. If kept, rename to Category:Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile. Vegaswikian 01:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Do not rename. It is commonly known as the FIA in English. Bhoeble 12:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All other subcategories of Category:Police officers by nationality are "(nationality) police officers." It seems like this distinction was made to allow for Mounties, but they too are police officers ("Royal Canadian Mounted Police"). So this can change.--Mike Selinker 07:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 10:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 17:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Where ^(talk)> 16:17, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe "in production" makes the category sound like the games in this category are already being sold. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 05:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, "in development" is what most game companies use in this context. So I'd suggest that, but "under" is fine.--Mike Selinker 07:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with preference for "under" due to following proposal. David Kernow 10:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Thunderbrand 01:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 14:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this name fits the category better. — Alex ^(T|C|E) 05:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 10:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Actually I prefer the current name. Most software (other than games) is continiously under development. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:52, 2006 March 22
• Oppose. While Category:Computer and video games in production works for it, we could easily list all Microsoft products under the new name. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 23:22, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a distinction between "a program" and "version X of a program" needs to be made...?  David Kernow 08:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, "Upcoming" is much less crystal-ballist than "in development". Deizio 01:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intriguing; to me, "upcoming" carries more of a sense of commitment to publish... David Kernow 08:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, lots of software that already has one of more released versions is still in development (ex. Linux kernel). The old and the new names for the category have completely different meanings. Where ^(talk)> 16:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. -- drange 19:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per TheDJ. --Snargle 15:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete with fire. Syrthiss 14:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing everyone who has ever guest-starred on a reality TV show isn't an appropriate use for categories. There's already a list of celebrities who have appeared on Punk'd - so there's no reason to clutter each celebrity's article with this category. Rhobite 04:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Agree with everything that Rhobite wrote above. --Nlu (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. Punk'd references are not that notable anyways, in my view (unless it marks the turning point of a career). Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 07:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom. I just made the very same comments on Talk:Lists of Celebrities who have been Punk'd. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, to add, it was originally a list. See Lists of Celebrities who have been Punk'd. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rhobite pointed that out already: "There's already a list of celebrities who have appeared on Punk'd." :) Buchanan-Hermit™..CONTRIBS..SPEAK! 08:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoops. I shouldn't be editing while lacking sleep. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Gilliamjf 08:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The list is enough. Crumbsucker 10:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Improper use of Category. --Abu Badali 16:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Sahasrahla 17:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Bhoeble 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Microtonal 18:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete arbitrary, over-categorizing Deizio 01:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not very useful. Joelito 03:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not that I think this would be any more (or less) useful, but why not rename to Category:Celebrities who have been punk'd? Believe me, I can't personally see why I'd ever refer to the list/category, but then I don't personally utilize most of the million+ pages here. This seems no more silly than many other categories wheere the consensus has been to keep. Colonel Tom 13:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Contrary to Tom's opinion this may be the silliest category listed here in recent months. Osomec 14:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with extreme prejudice. — Dale Arnett 17:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Very silly category. Pop culture-oriented and esoteric. Confine to a separate list without having it invade every single article it tracks. Downwards 01:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename as below. Syrthiss 14:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 14:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unabbreviate to match main article. Remove capital "C"Sumahoy 02:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename both as above. Sumahoy 02:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. Unlike the FIA abouve the full name is in English. Bhoeble 12:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, the new category name is too long and unnessasary. Also, all of the articles in the second category have "UAAP" in their title. Where ^(talk)> 16:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both UAAP is meaningless to me. Osomec 16:46, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 15:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I created this category out of ignorance - I hadn't really watched football very much by that point, and I was under the impression that wingers and midfielders were distinctly separate, when in reality they are not. I don't see any reason for having these two separate categories, seeing as every winger is also a midfielder. – ugen64 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support There is a distinction, but this category isn't being used very much and it seems unlikely it would ever be used in a very consistent way. Bhoeble 17:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Would have been valid 50 years ago but modern players are far more versatile, and midfield is certainly the best fit. Giggs has been a winger for ever, yet now he's playing centre-mid, for example. Deizio 01:25, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline, using Deizio's reasoning; what about the great wingers of the 1930's? Why lump them with midfielders? Colonel Tom 13:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This isn't the 1930s. Osomec 14:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Correct, Osomec, this isn't the 1930s. IMO, that's not relevant. IMO, What is relevant is that there have been, in the past, footballers who played in a position on the wing and were known as wingers, not as midfielders. Keeping this category can assist in maintaining that distinction. Colonel Tom 05:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If this category survives it will have to be made a subcategory of the midfielders category in line with modern usage, which you imply would be incorrect. Better to keep things simple. Osomec 19:36, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think this is a useful category. We have plenty of articles about historic players that wouldn't be classified as midfielders. - Nzd (talk) 14:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There are still plenty of players who play on the wing (ie, wingers), and never in the centre of midfield. For examples: Cristiano Ronaldo, Shaun Wright-Phillips, Stewart Downing. And Ryan Giggs may be playing out of position at the moment, but he's still identified as a winger. Proto||type 15:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest Category:Football (soccer) wingers made a subcategory of Category:Football (soccer) midfielders (and perhaps add explanation at top of latter) as per Osomec. (To me, "midfield" implies midway between centreline and goal, which includes wings; not midway between left and right.) David Kernow 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Wingers are considered to be attackers or forwards by many people. Wingers being considered midfielders usually requires a 442 formation.Slumgum | yap | stalk | 23:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was reverse merge. Syrthiss 15:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Not entirely sure what the best course is here but having these two separate seems to serve no purpose. All of the items in the records category are actually just statistical groupings. Most of the statistical groupings items happen to be records but don't necessarily have to be judging from the name. At the least, it seems like the hierarchy should be reversed but the separation is completely arbitrary IMHO, so just merge. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would say a better course of action is to merge both into a new category called Category:Baseball records and statistics to match the parent category Category:Sports records and statistics. There are several other subcategories of that which could change too.--Mike Selinker 07:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, I'd go along with that too. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Although I'm not sure I like how those are all broken out. The existing Category:Baseball statistics contains articles that are definitions of different baseball stats, like Hit by pitch and Earned run average. The records one contains lists of players who are the leaders in those statistics - not particularly related IMHO. It seems like we'd have to have this setup:

      Category:Baseball records and statistics - contains only two subcategories.

      Category:Baseball records - merged from this CFM.

      Category:Baseball statistics - existing stat definitions categories.

    • —Wknight94 (talk) 11:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Merge the other way (Baseball statistical groupings to Baseball records) and recategorize per Wknight94. The proposed new name here sounds like it should be a duplication of the existing Category:Baseball statistics, though that isn't what was intended, but rather that it include the lists of record holders and things like that. Gene Nygaard 05:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I'd go along with this before the "records and statistics" idea. My only issue with this is that it limits the articles to only actual records, not just statistical groupings. I'm not sure 30-30 club, Triple crown (baseball) and Hitting for the cycle qualify as records per se - but they're definitely statistical groupings. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But in those cases, one article serves to both define the quantity being measured, as well as those individuals who fit the criteria, don't they? In your scheme, we could to decide to either list them under Baseball statistics, or possibly in the parent category Baseball records and statistics, with some advice to editors along those lines on either the category page or its talk page. Gene Nygaard 14:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles in Category:Baseball statistics are definitions of the statistics, completely unrelated to records or record-holders IMHO. Maybe that's not fitting some other precedent but, in general, I'm more concerned that we have two categories here with basically the same type of information. Why are List of major league players with 2,000 hits and 3000 hit club in different categories when their concepts are almost identical? How they get merged is less important to me - as long as they're merged. Merge them wherever and then we can vote on what to name the new merged category later - that would be an ideal situation to me. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that merging them is the main thing, and could accept either name or a new one. Maybe someone else's thoughts on what the name should be would clear it up satisfactorily now. Gene Nygaard 16:30, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge per Gene Nygaard. - EurekaLott 17:23, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge, and recategorize the "Clubs" subcategories under Baseball statistics. --William Allen Simpson 14:31, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• That reverse merge sounds good too.--Mike Selinker 21:45, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.