Category:Northern Virginia military operations of the American Civil War[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.
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. See no need to split the Virginia in the American Civil War category into regions of the state, since no other state does so. 76.7.224.171 (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Neither the VA in the ACW nor the Eastern Theater categories are so large that this kind of subcategorization is necessary. Wild Wolf (talk) 18:35, 23 May 2012 (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.
Oppose. The franchise is actually called "Transformers", not "Transformers franchise". The main article is not disambiguated. The only reason the category contains the disambiguation is because there is also an article named Transformer, and if we had a category named ‹The templateCat is being considered for merging.›Category:Transformers it would be unclear if this were a set category for transformers or a topic category for Transformers. Since we are adding a disambiguation not contained in the article name, it makes more sense to me to do so parenthetically, to indicate that the word "franchise" is not part of the actual name of the franchise. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:36, 20 May 2012 (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 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:Alumni of the École supérieure des sciences économiques et commerciales[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.
Nominator's rationale I really do not care which way we do the merge, but it seems that foo alumni outnumbers alumni of foo cats among universities and colleges in France, so I guess the later would seem to make sense. The only thing I am sure of is that these two categories should be one and the same.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would have granted preference of creation initially, but on finding that we are talking about 3 days, I do not think that is a worthwhile argument. I think the standardization with the other universities and colleges should take precedent over the exceptionalism of the Grandes ecoles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why is precedence in time not a worthwhile argument? Of course it is! One cannot see a category named something and then create a duplicate under a different format three days later and then argue that priority in time means nothing! ... Judging by your initial nomination, I thought you didn't care which way the merge went anyway? Good Ol’factory(talk)09:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Editors should not create duplicate categories, but when it comes to removing the duplication the focus should be on what the best name is for the category, rather than on which was created first. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in the absence of a consensus as to which is better, we keep the one that was created earlier. So absent a consensus, it can be relevant. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:53, 25 May 2012 (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. The category lists no head article, and the nominator does not assert what he believes the head article to be (let alone help other CfD participants by linking to it), so the rationale for this rename is unclear. The only other commenter disagrees, but there was little discussion ... so feel free to renominate with a clearer rationale. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response Is this an actual problem? Do the novels (themselves based on the series) ever introduce characters with substantial enough commentary to warrant an article on Wikipedia? If not, then this is moot. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯19:53, 23 May 2012 (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.
Oppose Although having a category bear the same name as the main article is a commendable goal, it is not even noted for consideration in Wikipedia:Category names, and in this case, there is no other topic that are liable to require this disambiguation in the near future. Aix redirects to a page where the names are either geographical—and thus already disambiguated—or acronyms; it could just as well go to the genus with a hatnote to the disambiguation. Circéus (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This is not speedy since it's been contested, but seems entirely in the spirit of C2D. (I'm glad to see that criterion has been created – I remember proposing making it a speedy criterion a couple of years ago but the idea didn't get consensus then.) Jafeluv (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename entirely necessary for disambiguation with the two well-known main cities called Aix (needless to say, the disam page follows the usual style & leaves the reader totally unaware which these are). Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 21 May 2012 (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, leaning to keep. It seems to me that WP:OC#ARBITRARY only rules out arbitrary limits picked by Wikipedians where There is no particular reason for choosing the number, and does not provide a policy basis for rejecting arbitrary limits that are officially celebrated by worldwide governing bodies. – FayenaticLondon18:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a very important milestone in football/soccer, but per these three consecutive nominations, we don't categorize players by arbitrary numerical accomplishments like "100 caps." The List of footballers with 100 or more caps covers this subject in vastly more detail, and in a much more organized manner. Note that by calling this arbitrary, I don't mean it's unimportant; I mean that it must imply a value judgment that the number of 100 caps is important to someone, and we don't generally do that in the category system.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One might argue that the difference between 99 caps and 100 caps is but a 1.01% difference in quantity (although the irony of measuring the irrelevance of the number 100 as a percentage is huge), but the difference between being listed as a member of a specific grouping by the sports organising body, and not being so listed, is an absolute difference. Kevin McE (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - there's nothing 'arbitrary' about the number chosen, FIFA has decided that 100 caps is of special worth and deserving such an honour. GiantSnowman16:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - "The List of footballers with 100 or more caps covers this subject in vastly more detail, and in a much more organized manner." Goes hand-in-hand with the category, per WP:CLN. Lugnuts (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – 100 has been arbitrarily chosen by FIFA, but is still arbitrary. (CLN certainly does not say that lists and categories justify each other.) Oculi (talk) 19:42, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Analysis of the number of fingers on your hands will suggest that the number chosen by FIFA is not arbitrary, but the criteria for admission, and the description of the category, are not primarily dependent on the number 100: they are dependent upon a specific list that FIFA maintains. Kevin McE (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; it is not arbitrary in the sense that someone in WP has chosen this cut-off in isolation from what is commonly done by FIFA outside of WP, but it is an arbitrary cut-off in the abstract sense. Arbitrary in this sense does not mean unimportant or invented by WP editors; what it does mean is that objectively there is no large difference between a 99 capper and a 100 capper unless one accepts the value judgment that has been selected by FIFA. I see no one in favour of keeping has bothered to address the issues raised by the precedents linked to, all of which addressed very similar categories. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:23, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in the other discussion the nominator rationale was "we don't create categories around arbitrary career numbers like 300 and 500", the next was "we don't make categories about player accomplishments by season". To me 300 or 500 is a arbitrary then 100, and this is not just one season it's throughout your career. Besides, 100 caps for your nation is a big thing in association football, and it's not an arbitrary number as it's FIFA who made this thing up. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Good Ol'factory and per WP:OC#ARBITRARY. The fact that FIFA has chosen this arbitrary cut-off point does not make it any less arbitrary, nor does the fact that it is a round number. There is no significant difference between a player who has 99 caps and one who has 100 caps, because both are highly-accomplished players, and while passing the milestone may make for a small celebration, it is ultimately only a minor step. There is already a List of footballers with 100 or more caps, so no info will be lost by deleting this category. I notice that neither that list nor the article Cap (sport) provide any evidence that the magic number of 100 has a huge wider significance, and none of the contributors to this discussion have offered any such evidence. I understand that some sports fans like statistics, so I have no objection to the existence of the list (provided it is nor WP:OR), but the category system is not the place for this sort of info. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's not really. There is no real inherent difference in quality or ability. Nor does reaching 100 caps make the person a better player. The sole difference is that FIFA and others have decided to recognise the 100-game cutoff as being significant and a marker of excellence. That's pretty much the definition of what is meant by an arbitrary characteristic in categories. It doesn't mean unimportant or non-notable. It means it's essentially like an award, not something inherent about the nature of the subject itself. Good Ol’factory(talk)09:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And that is why it is named as it is: it is a list of those who have received this recognition from FIFA, and there is no number as a threshold in the name of the category. Is your contention that an award from the sports international organising body is not worthy of a category? A player should not be added to the category simply because they have played their hundredth international (indeed, some players have appeared more than 100 times for their country and are not included): they are in this category because they are in FIFA's club. Kevin McE (talk) 11:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I generally agree with the guideline on categories and awards: WP:OC#AWARD. I don't see this as analogous to a Nobel Prize, mainly because it is an award based on the arbitrary selection of the number of games played, rather than an achievement of some specific excellence. Why not 50 games? Why not 75 games? Because 100 is a nice, round, rare-to-reach-but-occasionally-doable—but still arbitrary—number. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Good O gets to the nub of the issue there. This FIFA title in not a mark of excellence; it is a recognition of career durability. It may include a notable great performer from a successful side ... but it can also include someone from a national side which couldn't beat 3 blind mice, but who has endured because he is slightly less useless than his successive team-mates. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:37, 27 May 2012 (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 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.
This TV franchise shares characters amongst its properties, and is otherwise interlinked, Dallas (TV series), Knots Landing, Dallas (2012 TV series), so rename the categories so that they can function for the entire TV franchise.
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.
