View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 10

< December 9 December 11 >

December 10

[edit]

Category:Members of the All Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NON-DEFINING. Membership of an All Party Group is one of the least-defining attributes of a Westminster MP; AFAICS, there are no other categs of APG membership.
Only 5 of the category's 20 articles even mentions the group anywhere other than in the page's categories (Dowd, Razzall, Weatherley, Whittingdale, Wishart) and Weatherley is the only one of the 5 with a reference for his membership. That lone ref is to the House of Commons register of APGs, so we have zero evidence of any broader interest in membership of this APG.
There are currently 565 All Party Groups in Westminster, and most MPs are members of at least half-a-dozen. These groups rarely gets any coverage in mainstream media, and even the topic-specific media which may print their press releases rarely identify more than one or two members of such groups.
In this case, the head article All-Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group appears to fail WP:GNG, so I will AFD it. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 10 December 2017 (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:Wikipedia pending changes protected pages (level 1)

[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since pending changes level 2 protection is no longer a thing, there is no need for the disambiguation in the category title. —MRD2014 Happy Holidays! 21:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we will need a template editor to edit Template:pp-pc1 Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 07:31, 21 December 2017 (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.

Seasonal events by country

[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: keep/withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
plus all country subcategories
Nominator's rationale: delete as nearly empty container categories on top of Category:Winter sports competitions by country. If the intention was just to create a path from Category:Events to Winter sports competitions by country, then there is also an alternative path via Category:Sporting events by country which is better populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 10 December 2017 (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:Male actors from Gary, Indiana

[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 to Category:Male actors from Indiana and Category:People from Gary, Indiana. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article in category. JDDJS (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why we should, but I do understand why we do — because the very small number of cities where it's entirely defensible because they're where notable actors actually do the acting (e.g. New York City, Los Angeles, London, Toronto, etc.) had them, certain people decided that every other city that had one or more actors born there automatically gets one too. Most cities frankly shouldn't have any occupation-from-city subcategories at all except mayors — but much like "(Nationality) actors of (ethnic) descent", good futzin' luck getting them to go away and stay gone. Bearcat (talk) 04:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom (and to Category:People from Gary, Indiana if they've been diffused out of it.) Every city does not automatically need one of these just because there are actors from there — even if it technically escapes WP:SMALLCAT just by having more than five possible entries, it still fails WP:OCAT's proscription against subcategorizing by geographic location. Being from Gary has no WP:DEFINING relationship with being an actor per se, and Category:Male actors from Indiana is not even close to large enough to require diffusion by individual city — but diffusing a by-state category into a by-city one has to pass one or both of those tests, and a city does not automatically get one of these just because there are more than five people who could be filed in it. Bearcat (talk) 04:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then you need to have that discussion further up the tree. It doesn't make sense to delete just this one while there are dozens of the very similar categories still in existence. This should be a procedural keep while we have the larger discussion about most actor by city subcategories.--TM 13:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, we really don't have to keep this pending a wider discussion on the rest of the tree, because nothing about the rest of the tree requires this to exist as part of it. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2017 (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:People of the Tudor period

[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: keep. No consensus on scope or containerising, but CfD discussions focus on keep/delete. A discussion on scope at a project page may be better to clarify scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:07, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: containerise per WP:SUBCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. The articles are already in in the tree of Category:16th-century English people or Category:16th-century Welsh people; or they are about foreign people for whom a proper inclusion criterion has not been specified. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- They are not the same. The Tudor period is 1485-1603, with 18 non-16th century years. Tudor and Stuart are normal periods used by hisotrians. Historians also used a "long 18th century" c.1688-1815. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query Could the scope be tightened up? For example "anybody born in any of the years ruled by a Tudor dynast in any of their realms or dominions". What about Ireland? Are people born in Donegal in 1550 "Tudor people"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:47, 13 December 2017 (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:Animal dance

[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 9#Category:Animal_dance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING for most of the animals listed in the category. There are a few articles in this category that are specifically about dance (e.g. Grooming dance and Round dance (honey bee)), but those articles are already well categorized under categories for communication, reproduction etc. We don't generally categorize animals by what behaviors they have (although there are some categories e.g. Category:Gliding animals) - otherwise we'd have categories for animals that swim, dig, fly, nest, ... DexDor (talk) 07:25, 10 December 2017 (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:Caspian littoral states

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING (e.g. for Russia). See previous CFD - Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_3#Category:Countries_bordering_water_bodies. DexDor (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2017 (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:African-American basketball players

[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: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The overwhelming majority of biographies in this category are unsourced and unprovable. Per WP:BLPCAT, "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources." I've spent considerable amount of time and energy sorting articles with reliable sources but these are very few and far between. The common argument in favor of keeping this category on an article is "everyone knows person X is African-American". This is of course not how we use categories but it is virtually impossible to stop. Moreover, the vast majority of basketball players are African-American, so as to make it non-defining. Per WP:EGRS, this is no longer recognized "as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" given the preponderance of African-Americans in all levels of basketball. TM 02:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are problems in other categories as well but for now I think this is example should be deleted for the reasons stated above.--TM 02:01, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think your point is a good one. Ethnicity-based categories, especially for sportspeople, are notoriously difficult to prove and rarely have sources. I think a wider discussion on how to handle them is in order. However, I don't think that should stop us from deleting this category and then moving on to deal with others.--TM 12:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I would recommend coming up with a composite plan for Category:African-American sportspeople and all of it's diffused categories. Deleting and upmerging this one alone will cause problems if it is later determine that the parent category should stay and diffusing as a whole is, in fact, appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there is a larger discussion, I believe that we need to address the second part of my argument, i.e. that African-American basketball players no no longer represent a distinct and unique cultural topic because of their majoritarian status at all levels of the game. I've read that 80% of the players in the NBA are African-American.--TM 13:13, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bagumba that the entire parent category tree should be discussed at once. Other sports have the same dynamic where African-American players are not rare (example - Category:African-American players of American football). The problem with having this discussion in pieces is that you get different voices in the discussion at different times so you get rationale presented after actions have been taken at the sub-category level that are sub-optimal for the larger tree. If we discuss Category:African-American sportspeople as a whole we can have the discussion about if it makes sense for some sports and not others and not create inconsistency. I may not be opposed to deleting the category (I don't typically add it to articles I create because I don't find it that useful), but I want to hear the discussions and don't want inconsistent application across sports. Rikster2 (talk) 14:03, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete African-Americans are an ethnic group. If no reliable sources support that these players belong to the group or self-identify with the group, then categorizing them as such is Original Research and a potential BLP violation. Personally I like categories which categorize people by ethnicity or descent, but there have to be sources supporting such categorization. Dimadick (talk) 18:08, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's an exagerration to say that no sources exist. Michael Jordan and many others are sourced, and others can be sourced. Is it annoying that some editors rely on the eye test? Sure. Are there some errors on Wikipedia. Hmmmm. But make it clear if that is your rationale for deleting. No need to claim that there are no sources.—Bagumba (talk) 01:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nom cites WP:EGRS, but the guideline states: "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." However, published books exist like "Black Hoops: The History of African-Americans in Basketball" and "Elevating the Game: Black Men and Basketball", making this topic appear notable. Moreover, this should also be discussed with Category:African-American sportspeople and its subcategories in order to reach a full consensus on whether these subcategories can rightfully exist to WP:DIFFUSE. No point deleting one just to have to repopulate later if this is only a local consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this gives the impression that the text of the guideline needs improvement. The examples in the guideline are obvious cases of categories that should be allowed: Category:LGBT writers is allowed because LGBT writers introduced a new genre in literature; Category:African-American musicians is allowed because African-Americans introduced a new music genre (or maybe multiple genres). But African-Americans did not introduce a new way of playing basketball. In other words, the guideline aims to prevent trivial intersections but reality is that there are sources that discuss trivial intersections... Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep African-Americans in basketball is a well-documented and important topic in American sports. Their now-majority status in the sport does not change that fact. I advocate the diffusion of this category further by gender as there are distinct histories there (cf. Category:African-American female rappers). SFB 21:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete FVor many years the majority of basketball players in the US have been African-Americans. We do not categorize people by a trait that is the majority group. Beyond this, as has been emphasized by others, we categorize by ethnicity, which means you cannot just look at a picture, and assume a category, which seems what is done in many of these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. So what if there is a current majority? There was a very long stretch where this was not that case. Also, don't forget that there are basketball players who are black but not African American. As for verifiability concerns, a substantial proportion will be easily verifiable. That is an issue that can be handled by means other than deleting the category. bd2412 T 05:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
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:Nigerian obstetricians

[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: keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap Rathfelder (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder is also creating various new obstetricians and gynaecologists categories via out-of-process moves: eg 1, 2. Oculi (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2017 (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:Nigerian gynaecologists

[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: keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the subjects are both obstetricians and gynaecologists‎ Rathfelder (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – see above. Rathfelder should have found out by now how to combine similar cfds rather than spreading them in ones and twos over several days. Oculi (talk) 19:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I see two categories with nearly the same contents and I haven't seen any counter evidence that in Nigeria these are consistently separate occupations. Note, the previous nomination was closed as keep because there seems to be a clearer distinction in the United States, but that doesn't have to apply to all countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. When the merging of parent categories was rejected a few weeks ago, the decision applied equally to the subcats. These nominations are disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, it is disruptive. It is also disruptive to do these one by one without mentioning the others: Russians on 3 Dec, Malaysians on 8 Dec and now Nigerians. Each one so far has attracted a different set of commentators and could easily lead to different outcomes, which would be unsatisfactory. Oculi (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2017 (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.