Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 13

< February 12	February 14 >

February 13

Wrestling and professional wrestling

Propose keeping and repopulating the following and their siblings with the corresponding "professional wrestlers" categories:
Nominator's rationale: I am bringing this to CFD for discussion along with the wider relationship between the hierarchies of Category:Professional wrestling and Category:Wrestling.

The nominated categories are currently empty. Until December 2017, they each contained only the respective national sub-cat of Category:Professional wrestlers by nationality, e.g. Category:Barbadian professional wrestlers.

Galatz (talk · contribs) and *Treker (talk · contribs) agreed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Professional_wrestling/Archive_100#Wrestling_categories that since Wrestling is an Olympic sport and Professional wrestling is a form of entertainment, all categories within Category:Professional wrestling should be removed from the hierarchy of Category:Wrestling. This includes all national categories of professional wrestlers, all year categories within Category:Years in professional wrestling, etc, to take them out of all sport-related parents.

In a short discussion today at Category talk:Professional wrestling, Galatz has justified his approach on the basis of a strict interpretation of WP:SUBCAT.

IMHO this outcome will not be intuitive to readers of Wikipedia, given that (i) "professional wrestling" is often shortened to "wrestling", and (ii) English Wikipedia allows somewhat loose connections within the category tree. Moreover, taking Galatz and *Treker's approach rigorously would require removing professional wrestling categories from martial arts categories, as martial arts is categorised within sport; this does not strike me as a helpful outcome. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why would pro wrestling categories ever be at a MMA article?★Trekker (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Which martial arts categories are you referring to? Right now Category:Professional wrestling is categorized as Category:Mock combat, Category:Sports entertainment, and Category:Theatrical combat.

As I asked you in the discussion, you again mention " English Wikipedia allows somewhat loose connections within the category tree" which is why I mentioned WP:SUBCAT did not seem to agree with that. What are you basing this "loose connection" criteria on? Should baseball be listed as a subcat of basketball because both could be shortened to BBall, making them loosely connected? Similarly, should Category:Cricket be a subcat of Category:Baseball because they are played similarly although very different? No, they shouldn't be, which is why they aren't.

The other key factor in my opinion, which the nominator disagrees with, is WP:NSPORT already classifies professional wrestling as entertainment, not sport. How can we justify basing a person's inclusion on wikipedia based on something non-sport related then classify them as an athlete. It does not follow proper logic. It is possible someone like Bill Goldberg would fail WP:NSPORT but because of his college football days be classified as a sportperson for categories, but this is the exception, not the rule. Most professional wrestlers began training exclusively for it at a young age.

A person like Kurt Angle who won an Olympic gold medal in wrestling, had to train for 2 years because he could become a professional wrestler. Similarly wrestlers are regulated by state athletic commissions. Professional wrestling is excluded from this, and athletic commissions do not regulate professional wrestling.

A professional wrestling match, such as a Tables, Ladders, and Chairs match or Hardcore wrestling in general share no similarities to Wrestling other than the name. - Galatz ^Talk 23:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The relations between English Wikipedia categories are often discussed at WP:CAT. User:Postdlf recently summed up current practice well, here (that conversation is now archived here). – Fayenatic London 09:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repopulate, and WP:TROUT those who emptied them without a CfD discussion.

There are 2 reasons to keep:

Practical: To assist readers and editors who may not be aware of the distinction between professional wrestling and sport wrestling. Better to have a base category as a starting point than leave readers unable to find what they are looking for. Per WP:CAT, en.wp categories exist to facilitate navigation by readers. They are not some sort of purist taxonomy.
Logical: The distinction between sport and entertainment lacks a sharp boundary. In reality, there is a huge overlap.

All professional sport is to some extent a form of commercialised entertainment, in which a large number of people pay money to be entertained by a small number of skilled performer. Just like theatre, film, tv and circus, professional sport lives or dies by its ability to attract paying spectators, whether in person or through the media.

If there was a sharp line to drawn anywhere, it would be better drawn between professional sport and amateur sport, because the latter is sustained by the enthusiasm of the participants rather than the commerce of a paying audience. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why couldn't {{Category see also}} solve the problem of the confusion? Additionally in my opinion, you are looking at this backwards. You are saying all sports have commercialized entertainment, but professional wrestling is entertainment that mimics sport. Rather than comparing this to baseball being a form of entertainment, its more like considering Charlie Sheen to be a pitcher because of Major League (film). - Galatz ^Talk 04:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Galatz:

You're still not looking at this from the viewpoint of a reader. For any country "Foo", they should be able to go to a Category:Fooian wrestlers and find all the wrestlers, whether directly or in subcats. The reader should not have to know in advance about the distinctions.
A non-specialist editor who doesn't know about the distinctions should be able to categorise a biog in Category:Fooian wrestlers. A more knowledgeable editor can refine later, but without Category:Fooian wrestlers there will be nothing for them to refine.
entertainment that mimics sport is a description which many amateur sportspeople would use to describe those who engage in highly-paid commercial activity which mimics the form of leisure pursuits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Most sports being "commercialized entertainment" is irrelevant, because pro wrestling as an artform that it is today is not a sport at all.★Trekker (talk) 12:58, 14 February 2018 (UTC) Professional baseball or football is not like professional wrestling. Modern pro wrestling is theater with athletic elements.★Trekker (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and repopulate – it seems to me that Category:Wrestlers should be made into a container category with subcats Category:Professional wrestlers and Category:Sport wrestlers, with this split being applied to all subcats (so we would have Category: Fooian wrestlers as a container category with subcats Category:Fooian professional wrestlers and Category:Fooian sport wrestlers). It's not reasonable to say that a Pro wrestler is not a wrestler. (There is already Category:Danish sport wrestlers which for some reason was not in Category:Danish wrestlers. Ditto Category:Croatian sport wrestlers, Category:Dominican Republic sport wrestlers, Category:Filipino sport wrestlers.) There is also Category:Sumo wrestlers which might well come under 'sport'. Oculi (talk) 00:44, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have less of an issue with this idea than having it listed as a subcat under a category that lists sport wrestlers. The issue is though that wrestling is still considered a sport when professional wrestling promotions do not consider themselves sports organization, and state athletic commissions do not consider them to be athletes. So why should wikipedia consider them athletes? - Galatz ^Talk 04:09, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy. Category:Wrestlers should not be in any sports or entertainment category; Category:Professional wrestlers should be in the 'entertainment' tree but not the sports; Category:Sport wrestlers and Category:Sumo wrestlers should in contrast be in the 'sports' tree. Ditto for all national subcats. Oculi (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi: That would make sense to me. The fact that wrestling is a subcat for all sorts of sports categories is what made this become an issue to begin with. What categories would it be a subcat of then? - Galatz ^Talk 12:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transdev Group companies

Propose renaming Category:Transdev Group companies to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: This was a WP:C2D speedy nomination to rename to Category:Transdev. It's not a bad idea, even tho it doesn't strictly fit C2D ... but given the company history (see Transdev/Transdev (historic)), I wonder if it might be better to more clearly distinguish the two incarnations. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of discussion at speedy

Category:Transdev Group companies to Category:Transdev - C2D. ACendex (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is technically not suited for speedy since it would convert a set category into a topic category; however, the proposed change makes sense, so I have no objections. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as speedy. Transdev (historic) makes this look to me a little less clearcut than I first thought. Maybe Category:Transdev is the best option, maybe not. I'm not sure what the best solution is, so I think it needs a full discussion to consider options. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Scholars and academics by discipline

Propose merging Category:Scholars and academics by discipline to Category:Scholars and academics by subject

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, neither of the two categories has an explanation on the category page, and based on the current content it is not obvious by what criteria the two categories are divided. (Both categories have been tagged.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who study using Osmosis

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who study using Osmosis - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Apparent joke usercat —swpb^{T go beyond} 19:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a joke; Osmosis is a commonly-used medical study tool, see [1] Myoglobin (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Myoglobin: so it's not a joke, But per WP:USERCAT "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia". How does this category assist collaboration between editors ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:44, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I see your point, and perhaps the category should be removed. I only created it to go along with the userbox I made for Osmosis users. One possible valid use for the category would be for those working with Osmosis on the open-source videos used in many WP medical articles. Myoglobin (talk) 22:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Myoglobin: That sounds to me like a valid purpose for a usercat. Do you think this one will actually be used that way? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I'm not sure; that depends on who exactly is helping with those videos (I don't actually know). I would assume that they are/were at one point health students using Osmosis, so it's definitely possible. My main target for this category + ubx is current medical students; the idea being this would help identify users that might possibly be interested in helping with the WP/Osmosis collaboration. Myoglobin (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. @Myoglobin describes a collaborative use for this usercat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Disco songs by year

Propose deleting Category:Disco songs by year - Template:Lc1

Included in this nomination are the following related categories to the one above:

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for categorization of songs by genre by year (no 1964 rock songs, no 1998 pop songs, etc.), and I don't see a need for one without it resulting in overcategorization and adding another avenue for genre warring. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural question. @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Why propose deletion rather than merger to parent categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Because in all but a couple of instances, the disco year category was simply added to articles. Take Jive Talkin' for example. Category:1975 disco songs was added to it with this edit, but neither Category:1975 songs nor Category:Disco songs was removed. For those couple of instances where they were, I added those parents back in. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:00, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: In such cases it is much better to request merger, because the spot can ensure zero omissions much more reliably than any human. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:07, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - No. These should be deleted. Category:Andrea True Connection songs is already a child category to Category:Disco songs. I have to do human work anyway if upmerged, because More, More, More should then not be also categorized in Category:Disco songs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - given the size of the "Songs by year" categories, many of which have over 2000 articles in them, this could be a useful scheme to expand, rather than to curtail. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Overcategorization of song and album articles has been curtailed by being able to make, say, Category:American rock songs a parent to Category:Bruce Springsteen songs and, therefore, no Category:Rock songs category needs to go in the individual articles for Bruce Springsteen songs, but this scheme would allow Category:1984 rock songs, etc. This could end up becoming a categorization nightmare for artists who transcend genres, so such articles could contain something like Category:2012 pop songs, Category:2012 hip hop songs, Category:2012 electronic songs, Category:2012 contemporary R&B songs, even though they are already in 3 of those genres through the parent artist's songs category. Then there's the issue of maintenance from the categories genre warriors will undoubtedly try to add and create, or songs that that are covered by other artists, so it's possible one song could be placed in Category:1993 rock songs, Category:2001 rock songs, and Category:2018 country songs. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:46, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave it alone. I think we should have genre by year categories. I'd be happy to create more categories for other genres. --Pieceofgarbage (talk) 19:38, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multi-sport sailing competitions in the United States

Propose merging Category:Multi-sport sailing competitions in the United States to Category:Sailing competitions in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation Smartskaft (talk) 10:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Star World Championships in the United States

Propose merging Category:Star World Championships in the United States to Category:Sailing competitions in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation Smartskaft (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. With 23 pages, this is a useful subcategorisation of Category:Sailing competitions in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sailing at the Summer Olympics in the United States

Propose merging Category:Sailing at the Summer Olympics in the United States to Category:Sailing competitions in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation, there are no other similiar categories like this in the category tree, (Category:Swimming at the Summer Olympics in the United States et cetera) Smartskaft (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flow network

Propose renaming Category:Flow network to Category:Network flow problem

Nominator's rationale: Procedural listing of a speedy nomination which I contested on procedural grounds. Speedy nominator @David Eppstein seems to understand the topic, but I know nothing about it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at speedy

Category:Flow network rename to Category:Network flow problem — C2D. This was recently renamed from Category:Network flow to Category:Flow network but that is the wrong name for this topic. "Network flow" is the name used in the literature for the general topic; a flow network is a specific type of mathematical object that is used as an input to a network flow problem and "flow network" does not describe other aspects of the subject such as specific types of flow problem to be solved and algorithms to solve them; "network flow" covers the whole topic. The article flow network has been demoted from its main-article status (it should not have been main article) and a new article Network flow problem put in its place. I would actually be happier with the original name Category:Network flow rather than the proposed name, but that name goes to a dab article rather than to an article on this topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as speedy. @David Eppstein: you make a good case, but it doesn't meet any speedy criteria. This needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: Perhaps you can explain why the move to the wrong name was a C2D speed but now that the main article has been changed to the right name it can no longer be a C2D speedy again? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: because the case accepted then was the proposed change met WP:C2D. Whether or not that decision was wrong, you make no such case ... so this needs a full discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:31, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The main article is now the proposed new category name, "Network flow problem". In what way does this not meet C2D? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein: because it wasn't the main article until you just WP:BOLDly made it so. So there is no consensus whether you are right, neither consensus-by-stability nor consensus-by-discussion; the point of C2D is that it is based on a consensus rather than on one editor's decision, no matter how wise they are. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UK Polaris programme

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: procedural close. The head article is at UK Polaris programme, and category names usually follow articles. In this case, it seems that @Hawkeye7 intended to correctly launch a WP:RM discussion as a followup to Talk:Trident (UK nuclear programme)#Requested_move_2_February_2018, but something went wrong: the article has been tagged[2] for this CfD, but the category wasn't. So I am closing this CfD, and point Hawkeye7 to the guidance at WP:RM#CM. If there is a consensus to rename the article,then the category can be speedily renamed per WP:C2D. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UK Polaris programme to Category:Polaris (UK nuclear programme)

Nominator's rationale: To match Trident (UK nuclear programme). There was overwhelming consensus for such a rename. This category needs renaming to match. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:15, 13 February 2018 (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.