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.
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.
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.
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.
tentative keep pending populating. Are you implying that the only seasonal events in any of these countries are sporting ones? I'd find that unlikely. Sure, some of these categories may not be populable with non-sporting events, but others should be.
Grutness...wha?00:05, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Make that a firm keep. A quick glance at the first six "Winter" categories show three which have far more than just sporting events. If it's possible for those countries, it should be possible for quite a few of the others. In fact, after a tiny bit of work, about 3/4 of those categories now contain more than just sports events. This looks like an easily expandable tree, and one which would be quite useful.
Grutness...wha?00:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Since I've done a few autumn events categories as well, and spring and summer ones are obviously possible, the parent seasonal categories should surely be kept too?
Grutness...wha?00:46, 14 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.
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 failsWP: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.--
TM13:23, 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
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
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
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
We have articles on a number of foreigners who settled in England.
John Cabot was from the
Republic of Venice, but offered his naval services to Henry VII and largely operated out of
Bristol.
Marcus Gheeraerts the Younger was a Flemish painter, but spend most of his life and career in England.
Hans Eworth was a Flemish exile who settled in
London and spend much of his career in the Tudor court.
Gerlach Flicke was a German painter from
Osnabrück, but settled in
London and most of his known works portray Tudor courtiers.
Lucas Horenbout was a Flemish painter, but was hired by Henry VIII and spend 25 years in service as a court painter.
Hans Holbein the Younger was a German painter for
Augsburg, but spend much of his career in England, serving among others
Thomas More,
Anne Boleyn, and
Thomas Cromwell.
Levina Teerlinc was a Flemish miniaturist but served as a court painter for three different Tudor monarchs.
Susannah Hornebolt was a Flemish painter, but spend most of her adult life in England, and served a series of Tudor queens.
Steven van der Meulen was a Flemish painter, but was hired by Elizabeth I and spend the best years of his career in her court. He died in England. These are only some of the most notable expatriates of the era.
Dimadick (
talk)
19:52, 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.
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.
Keep - Countries bordering enclosed seas might be useful. Similary Black Sea, Baltic, perhaps Mediterrean, perhaps North Sea. Oceans are too large to be useful and other seas lack adequately defined boundaries. The significance is that ship-bound trade can move between such countries.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)reply
That Russia has can have ship-bound trade across the Caspian may be worth a mention in the article about Russia, but is it really a defining characteristic of the country? DexDor(talk)06:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: If you really think its
WP:UNDUE, then feel free to delete it. On a second thought, I have to agree that "some value" is indeed not a super strong criterion. You're heavily involved in Wiki categories after all, so I trust that you know what you're doing. :-) I changed my vote to "Weak keep". Best,
LouisAragon (
talk)
19:56, 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: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.
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.
TM02:55, 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.--
TM02:01, 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.--
TM12:08, 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.--
TM13:13, 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
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
Yeah, I would strongly disagree with that logic too. Integration of sport in America signalled a huge change not just in basketball, but in all sports. Speed of the game, adding the dunk, rise and fall of HBCUs and NAIA schools, etc. There is a reason numerous books have been written on the subject.
Rikster2 (
talk)
02:37, 13 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).
SFB21:47, 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.
bd2412T 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
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.
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. AS thoroughly explored a few weeks ago, these are not the same, and there is a very big problem with incomplete categorisation. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
02:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I think that's a bad idea. The Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Malaysia (OGSM), while it looks throughout to be the one thing, like
track and field, doesn't look to be the slightest bit different to OBGYN in the rest of the world. All should be the same. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
03:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I don't see why all countries have to be treated the same. The practice of medicine varies over time and from place to place. In one country obs/gyn may always be practiced together, but in other places not.
Rathfelder (
talk)
23:07, 14 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.
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.