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.
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 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. —MRD2014Happy Holidays! 21:50, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Looks like a very sensible rationale, per nom. As a matter of curiosity, why isn't it called Category:Wikipedia pages protected pending changes, which would seem more clearly descriptive? And have a Happy New Year!yoyo (talk) 10:10, 31 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.
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]
Keep as Grutness established that there is scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 17:07, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partial withdraw, winter events categories can be dismissed from the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 13 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]
Fair enough if you are willing to populate all of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It'll be a long job, but I'll see what I can do. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 15 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.
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.--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]
Upmerge The Gary Indiana category is not big enough to justify subdividing it by occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:56, 26 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 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]
keep per Peterkingiron. Periods by dynasty are a natural way that historians split English history. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Periods per dynasty are useful in categorization. And a number of these people have specifically to do with the regime of Henry VII of England (1485-1509). Dimadick (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, then what is the defining characteristic of these people in relation to Henry VII? Based on that a subcat of Category:Henry VII of England may be created. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 13 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]
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]
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]
Comment This category should only include people notable during this time. Someone who was 2-years-old when Elizabeth I died should not go here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2018 (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.
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]
Keep - there are many important characteristics (such as Category:Tool-using animals) that are not defining, and we do characterize by behaviors, e.g.,Category:Diving animals, Category:Animals by eating behaviors, Category:Rolling animals, etc. I am not a biologist and will defer to them, but I do think it is important to avert humanocentrism to some degree - we are not unique in all our individual behaviors, but in their totality and complexity. The diversity of dancing in animals is useful to capture, and perhaps is worth its own article (by a biologist). Dpleibovitz (talk) 17:30, 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.
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 per nom and initially I took the liberty to add Category:Countries of the Indian Ocean to this nomination (which was deleted in the same discussion in 2013), but that category may be left for later. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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]
Comment The Caspian Sea is currently divided between 5 countries, the Black Sea between 6 countries, the Baltic Sea between 14 countries, the Mediterranean Sea between 60 countries, and the North Sea between 7 countries. By their nature, geographic categories of this type would be small and with little to no scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 11 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]
KeepWeak keep - I would have to concur with Peterkingiron. I'd say it definitely has some value. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some value is a weak criterion, it is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 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.
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. 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]
Comment It seems natural for this category to exist to WP:DIFFUSECategory:African-American sportspeople. Moreover, if Category:African-American sportspeople remains, the unprovable issue will still exist when the sportspeople category is used instead of the basketball one.—Bagumba (talk) 10:27, 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]
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). 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. bd2412T 05:02, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Except that most of the current contents are unverfied. Sometimes accepting the reality of misuse means that we need to scrap a misused category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:00, 6 January 2018 (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.
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]
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 understood that the decision in respect of the superior category was that we should discuss this by country separately.Rathfelder (talk) 22:02, 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.
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: 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.
