< November 22 November 24 >

November 23

Category:British male tennis players

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Tennis players represent Great Britain in nearly all notably competitions, not individual home nations. Mayumashu (talk) 22:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We have 'gendered British' ones because players represent GB in gendered (men's and boy's, as for this particular nomination) tennis competitions. We have English and Scottish categories for all notable people, so they belong in these categories too, but where most notable tennis players do not represent home nations in (gendered) competitions, it doesn't make sense to have gendered player cats by home nation. Mayumashu (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are sorted as by nationality not what country they are representing for that there are such cats as olympic tennis players of great Britain etc.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The good logic is that there are gendered competitions with players representing GB but nearly none (just one, the Commonwealth Games, but many tennis players never play in it) with players representing individual home nations. Mayumashu (talk) 02:01, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
again all these categories are sorted in parent cats as tennis players by nationality, there are others regarding events and countries represented by them.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 09:46, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - one does not cease to be Scottish or English just because one picks up a tennis racket rather than a squash or badminton racquet. Wearing a t-shirt does not magically erase a person's nationality. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well, actually we do not have Category:Scottish male squash players or Category:Scottish male badminton players either, so I think you may be missing the noms point. This nomination has nothing to do with saying they aren't Scottish or English, but is based on WP:Cat gender. We have a Category:Scottish tennis players as a subcategory of British, just as we do for say Category:Scottish engineers or Category:Scottish footballers. However, we do not neccesarily have male and female splits for the whole people tree. There is no Category:Scottish female engineers because gender, while rather lopsided in numbers, is not a defining aspect of ones status as a Scottish engineer, and upmerging that cat if it existed would clearly not be claiming that being an engineer magically erased ones gender (incidentally, only one country, Iran, has a female engineers cat, and it has only one article). While reliable sources may sometimes refer to a tennis player as a 'Scottish tennis player', hence justifying that category, the activity for which their gender is a notable defining characteristic is in competitions where they represent Great Britain. Thus the upmerging into both of the two parent categories. --Qetuth (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in my oppose below, players in many of the major competitions do not actually represent any country.
Also, Qetuth's comparison with engineers is misplaced. At almost every level of the sport, tennis competitions are rigidly divided by gender; that is not the case with engineering. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This issue is not as clear as I first thought. However, the official draws and publications of these events list the country for which a competitor is competing, prominently, almost every time they mention their name. Also that the unequal numbers from different nations does not preclude representation - Grand Slam entry statistics are almost identical to what you would find at recent Olympics, with the exception that the Olympics does not currently allow doubles teams of mixed nationality. Whether GB is a sovereign country is not as relevant as that the letters GBR are appended to, say, Andy Murray (to use the obvious example) whenever he competes. As for my engineering comments, I was thinking from the initial point of view that tennis players should be categorised nationally just as they are within their sport (and by gender as well), then trying to justify why the Scottish and English non-gendered cats should not also be deleted. Rereading, it, it does not really do anything to convince me that Category:Scottish tennis players should exist. --Qetuth (talk) 06:38, 9 December 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.

Category:American people of Pennsylvania Dutch descent

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Pennsylvania Dutch people, whose prose defines itself as being reserved for Americans. Furthermore, only three people in the category. pbp 17:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you're trying to make a distinction being ethnicity and descent that doesn't really exist, and even if it did, wouldn't be a justification for a category this small in size pbp 18:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again we hear the WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. But this is apples and oranges with the Cherokee case. As you can see by reading the cat descriptions, "Cherokee people" is reserved for people actually enrolled in those tribes. That is distinct from ethnicity: that is more akin to citizenship. The "American people of Cherokee descent" describes ethnicity separate from enrollment. Pennsylvania Dutch is an ethnic group without an associated concept of official membership or enrollment. Elizium23 (talk) 18:39, 23 November 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.

Category:Adi Shakti Peethas

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: upmerge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I could not find any references saying that the four mentioned are could Adi Shakti Pithas. WP:OR in Shakti Peetha article Redtigerxyz Talk 17:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The creator said that (User_talk:Redtigerxyz#Re:_Adi_shaktipeethas) it was based on Adi Shakti Peethas section in Shakti Peethas article, which I have removed per Talk:Shakti_Peethas#Four_Adi_Shakti_Pithas. I have not evidence in reliable references that "Adi Shakti Pithas" is not a WP:OR. --Redtigerxyz Talk 05:23, 24 November 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.

Category:Saturday Night Live cast members

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Deleted multiple times (the last was a speedy delete citing the last deletion before that), as there is no scheme of Category:Television actors by series. Cf. Category:Saturday_Night_Live_writers —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There does not appear to be a widespread categorization scheme for the casts of stage shows. There's no categories for the companies of Broadway shows for instance. Buck Winston (talk) 01:18, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not the standard for having a category. Buck Winston (talk) 01:18, 25 November 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.

Category:Dandy

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 at Dandy.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Dandy to Category:Dandies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This page contained only Dandy, Flâneur and Quaintrelle (which I have proposed should be merged into Dandy), a work of fiction and one biography. I have added more biographies where this is supported within each article. Renaming to the plural seems natural; but perhaps the proper outcome would be "listify (in Dandy) and delete" after all. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 23 November 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.

Category:Fictional trans men

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Too underpopulated of a category to be split up. Dohayecarumbadoh (talk) 04:46, 23 November 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.

Category:Sega Mega Drive

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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article's title is Sega Genesis, after several long discussion and move discussions at Talk:Sega Genesis. Also nominating the following categories for renaming:

This could fall under C2D, but I would rather someone agree with me that it is C2Dable. Izno (talk) 02:12, 23 November 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.

Category:American actors of Pakistani descent

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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 5 December 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.

Category:Indian medical journals

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Years ago, there was a discussion in the WikiProject Academic Journals about country-specifi categories for academic journals (German journals, American journals, etc) and it was decided to abolish them. There were good reasons for this and the current category aptly demonstrates the problems: most journals that are currently contained in this cat are published by Medknow Publications which, until recently, was indeed a purely Indian publisher. However, almost a year ago, the company became a full subsidiary of Wolters Kluwer, a company registered in the Netherlands. Should we now categorize all these journals as "Dutch medical journals"? Of course not. The reality of academic publishing today is that it is a very international enterprise. Even most journals that have the name of a country in their title will have people from all over the world in their editorial boards. Often, the editor-in-chief will live in a different country. Large publishers like Wolters Kluwer, Elsevier, or Springer will have multiple headquarters, in different countries. Authors will be from all over the world, the actual production of the journal (typesetting and such) will be in yet other countries, in short, although things might be clear for some of the journals in this category, for many others this will not be the case. What to do, for example, with a journal originally published by Blackwell (UK, since a few years a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons, USA, but still with major offices in Oxford where many of their publishers are still based), typeset in Singapore, printed in Malaysia, and edited by a Dutchman living in France? Tagging journals like those contained in this category with the appropriate medical field category and then, if one really thinks a country-specific category is needed, with "Medical research in India" is a much better solution. A final consideration may be that if there still somewhere exists something like a journal that is completely specific to one particular country (editors, editorial board, authors, and publishers all based in that country) chances are very large that such a journal would not be notable, because that simply is not the way any more that science is being done nowadays. Randykitty (talk) 00:38, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • John, please note that each and every one of the entries in this cat is also in the appropriate medical specialty cat (such as "Oncology journals"), which are all subcats of 'medical journals". --Randykitty (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You are absolutely right that different regions face sometimes different medical needs. However, all these journals branded "Indian" do not exclusively focus on the health needs of India, nor do journals that don't have the word "India" (or are published elsewhere) ignore medical issues specific to the Indian region. I don't think that we can categorize journals on the basis of our (subjective) judgment of their contents. --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See the remark below about the Indian-published British Journal of Medicine and Medical Research. I suspect the publisher named this journal to have some people think that this was the BMJ, although the latter probably took some (legal?) action as the journal's website now carries a disclaimer that it is not the BMJ... Note that its publisher, SCIENCEDOMAIN international is on Beall's list of predatory publishers. Beall notes that this apparently India-based publisher names its journals "American" or "British". In summary, I don't think that we should take the branding of a journal as criteria to include it in a country-specific category either. For the moment, none of the journals of this particular publisher are notable, but they may well become notable in future (if they publish something really egregious, for example, or if reliable sources report on their shady practices) and then we might have an article on them, posing the question where to categorize them. --Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Many journals have the name of a country or region in their name. For example, the European Journal of Neuroscience. Should we categorize this one as a "European journal"? One of the editors is based in Europe, the other in the US. The publisher was originally British (Blackwell Publishing), but is now a subsidiary of John Wiley & Sons. The editorial board contains members from all over the world, the same goes for article authors. So does this belong in "American journals" (publisher, editor, board members, and authors), "British journals" (original publisher and editor at that time), "European journal" (name and the other editor), or even "French journals" (the other editor is based in France)? I agree that for a few journals, things may be straightforward. However, the example of EJN shows that if we start categorizing journals by country/region, we open the doors to endless debates. Academic publishing is international nowadays. Some journals with a very long history have taken the consequences of this: the British Medical Journal now calls itself BMJ, for example (making it clear that BMJ is not to be seen as an acronym of the former title). --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 26 November 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.
More