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:Rename. I think it's not correct to apply the term "winner" to any sort of Guinness Record holder. For example, suffering from diseases such as dwarfism or gigantism is not an achievement at all and may be a lifelong woe to these sufferers, even if it makes them listed in the Book, so I propose the usage of more neutral word "holder". --ɴõɴəχүsƚ22:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After reading the old deletion discussion at the proposed name, I propose we re-delete this category. What is the benefit of a navigation tool which takes you from Burj Khalifa to Jennifer Lawrence via Division of Kalgoorlie through Blue Whale. This makes absolutely no sense as a context-less navigational tool because creating a category strips away the very meaning which allowed the world record. Much better as a list, but the sheer number would be daunting (and also present fair use issues). SFB19:14, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as previously discussed and deleted material. The proposed target category was deleted here. (The category creator might have created it under the new name to avoid re-creating a deleted category?) Good Ol’factory(talk)00:19, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename. I have a bit of difficulty with the outcome of the previous CfD, as it does not contain an answer to the question how to categorize people who are solely notable for holding a Guinness record. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really see the purpose of narrowing this down to 'professional'. Also I'm not sure if we should remove Guinness, since that is actually very defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: "professional" instantly excludes people who can break records in their occupation (high jumpers for example), yet whose occupation is not strictly "record breaking". SFB20:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per previous CFD. It might be best to check if any of the articles need a new parent category, but those I've just checked (including one which I removed as it didn't mention GWR) had other suitable parents (e.g. a sportsperson category). DexDor (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Guinness Book of Records contains such wildly divergent things — people notable for doing something, people notable for being something, inanimate objects, places, roads, animals, companies, and on and so forth — that it's simply not a navigationally useful grouping. And since world record holders are frequently supplanted by new holders outdoing them, in many cases it's a point of temporary categorization that isn't adequately maintainable. Bearcat (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the Guinness book has far to many odd bits of information for this to make a worthwhile category. If kept, it should be renamed per nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category and Rename but Oppose proposed rename, instead Rename differently: I can see the problem with "win" being used for potentially harmful non-endeavours (youngest mothers, dwarfism, gigantism) but I have a problem with "hold" because it is too present-specific. It would mandates too much updating, removing the category from people if their record is broken. That is also wrong because even if a record is surpassed, the person still was the first to hold a certain record before it was surpassed. I would propose a bot-rename of all content within to Category:Guinness World Records setters. By using "set" rather than "hold" we include those who set records which are then later surpassed. I oppose deletion, this is a valuable category to keep. It will not be flooded because to be included in this category, the person has to have a page to begin with, and thus be notable. So it's not as if EVERY record-setter will be in the category, only those who are as a whole notable people, which greatly cuts down on the amount that will be in it. If it does become bloated then we can later sub-divide the category based on other criteria, like perhaps on the basis of gender, which would bisect it nicely. Ranze (talk) 05:34, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning here is faulty, we are not reprinting every single stat or record-holder, so we are not operating as a stats-book. We are simply identifying those notable topics (those with articles) who set a record. This is only a small portion of record holders. Guinness lists stuff like who has the fastest play-through of a video game but they would not show up in the category because there is no article about them. Ranze (talk) 03:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Garage door openers
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:Rename. Based on the content this is for manufactures. I have no objection to a delete if the discussion moves in that direction. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Airport lounges
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:Delete. OK, I did remove a type of seat which did not belong leaving this with one entry. So this could be deleted for many reasons, small being one of them. The better question is should we delete this or populate it? Most clubs are redirects to a section of the airlines article, like Admirals Club, which I believe is one of the oldest, so there may not be a need to populate. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually from what I can tell, there is enough information for this, but in several cases, they have been merged into the owning airlines' article. And while I don't strongly oppose deletion, I do think a rename better serves our readers, as categories are for navigational purposes, and this would definitely help, rather than hinder navigation. - jc3714:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Airline airport lounges. The more I look into this, the more it looks like this should be kept. I do think it needs a rename to distinguish between the premium airline lounges and just some "airport waiting area". There is a long history for these, with a history spanning decades. And we do have an article for Airport lounge, and List of airline and airport lounges suggests that this is a category that has immense possibilities for growth. - jc3714:16, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments about potential from Jc37. Added another airport lounge to the category. Disagree with rename as there's no reason why non airline run aiport lounge's should be in a seperate category. Bosstopher (talk) 13:45, 24 April 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:Rotundas
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:Rename. Rotunda is ambiguous so some change is needed. Since the contents are mostly buildings that have a rotunda, this is clarified in the proposed target name. One could argue that if 'buildings with' is included we don't need the '(architecture)' since the use would be clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Songs with samples by Stevie Wonder
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.
Listify This is useful content that readers will want to explore, but a list is much better than a category. The songs themselves don't really need linking together as they often aren't very connected ideas at all. SFB00:07, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no list. I agree with non-defining, but making it a list seems pretty trivial. I don't think "Songs with Stevie Wonder samples" is a recognized subgenre or discussed as a cohesive or natural set, which fails WP:LISTN, and the list's only purpose would be to scratch the trivia itch of a small group of music fans. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American politicians convicted of federal public corruption crimes
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.
Merge -- the parent has bribery and corruption branches. I am not sure that the difference is in practice that great. I see no reason why the particular offences should not be directly in the parent, which should ideally be a container only one. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
oppose WP seems to want specific facts regarding criminal convictions; in these case, the specific fact is that the people were convicted of crimes under specific federal law. Grouping them together here is certainly more clear and orderly than just stuffing them into the higher level category. Hmains (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Hmains: There is a misunderstanding, a few lines above there was a discussion about a different idea than the nomination refers to. The nomination is not to get rid of the subcategories, the nomination just says that the subcategories may just as well be parented directly to Category:American politicians convicted of corruption instead of to an in-between-layer that has no purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 29 March 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:American politicians convicted of bribery
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:Women bloggers
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.
Ideally, all non-diffusing categories should be marked as such. I don't know if there's a bot that checks whether articles categorized as non-diffusing are ghettoized (or if that's possible), but that could help with implementation. gobonobo+c06:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support the most intriguing quality about (many) bloggers is that you cannot tell their sex by what they write, which is convincing that their sex is not defining of their output or notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While tagging this as non-diffusing might be good, it is not very pressing. Most people get put in nationality+occupation categories. As long as this is a trans-national category, the general trend will be to put the articles in this category and the nationality category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Artefact (band) albums
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.
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
