< December 9 December 11 >

December 10

Category:Members of the All Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group

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]
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the All Party Parliamentary Intellectual Property Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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)

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

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

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]
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

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]
  • Agree, not exactly the same. But English people who died around 1500 should mostly be considered to be pre-Tudor, unless they were specifically active in their last few years on behalf of Henry VII, then they should be in Category:Henry VII of England, where they can stay after containerization. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is indeed the second point of the nomination: there is no inclusion criterion specified for non-English/non-Welsh people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 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

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

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

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]
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

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

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]
  • 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.
More