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: Only one article in the category, which fails WP:HOCKEY. Was C1 but the tag was removed by Joeykai, Salavat, and Sportsfan 1234: Speedy deletion declined, category isn't empty. It still contains Anjali Thakker. This isn't controversial. AaronWikia (talk) 18:14, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category is valid as part of the hockey players by nationality tree. Please take the article to Articles For Deletion if you think it's non-notable. SFB 21:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". (emphasis added by me)
Keep per BrownHairedGirl's argument. The article couldn't be moved up to "Category:Ice hockey players by nationality" as it is only a container category. Salavat (talk) 01:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BHG, and also noting that SMALLCAT refers to "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". Ice hockey is gaining popularity in New Zealand, and that requirement of SMALLCAT isn't accurate in this case. Grutness...wha? 02:23, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of ice hockey players by nationality. Flibirigit (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, obviously. Oculi (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a clear case keep. Looks like I am going to have to look through some edits to make sure players haven't been removed from nationality cats again. Not sure why this user keeps trying to have nationality cats deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 11:01, 7 May 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: No clear distinction between the two categories Rathfelder (talk) 17:39, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I guess that "medical works" is about professional works. If kept, the category needs more clarification. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the distinction aimed for is to separate out instructional and academic works from entertainment works. The above does not achieve this. Many categories share these dual "X works"/"Work about X" categories so I don't think we should treat this one in isolation. I've opened a wider discussion about the "X works" and "Works about X" categories as this isn't a stand-alone case. @Rathfelder: Do you want to withdraw this nom and add your comments to the wider discussion? SFB 14:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Agree that similar considerations apply. If necessary there could be sub cats for instruction, entertainment etc. Rathfelder (talk) 17:47, 10 May 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.
Oppose don't see the problem in dividing stubsorting into actors and actresses as it would aid editors in searching, for example an editor looking to improve french actress stubs. It would also make the stub sorting more precise and less cumbersome as at present stubsorting mentions both actor and actress in every acting stub sort. The fact that hardly any acting categories mention stubs shows why stub sorting by actor and actress would be useful as it isn't already covered, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 15:56, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge/redirect per nom. As discussed elsewhere, the current system of sorting performer stubs already distinguishes people by nationality, decade/year of birth, type of work (voice, stage, etc.); there's no need to distinguish a performer by their gender/sex. (There are plenty of stub categories that are sub-cats of acting categories, so I'm not sure where the previous commenter is looking.) Pegship (talk) 20:49, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support pr nom. Stub categories for actors are split by nationality, medium and if necessary by decade of birth. A fourth split by sex/gender is unnecessary. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The difference between male actors and female actresses governs what roles they perform.-- Toddy1(talk) 03:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The difference in roles is not relevant to the organization of stub articles on WP. Pegship (talk) 18:02, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But it is relevant to editors who want to view stubs specifically about either actors or actresses but not both, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 11:34, 10 May 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: Nearly all of the contents that were here belonged in Category:Atmospheric optical phenomena, and I have moved them there. I don't think this category is needed. Srleffler (talk) 15:03, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as long as child category takes on the current grandparent categories. SFB 14:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The child category should take on the categories Meteorological phenomena, Optics, and Atmosphere of Earth, but not Oceans.--Srleffler (talk) 01:33, 8 May 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. (As I merely listed someone else's nomination, I consider myself not barred from closing this. The discussion is unanimous anyway.) – FayenaticLondon 21:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Better match with parent categories. This was tagged in March for speedy renaming, but there is not a clear enough case for that. – FayenaticLondon 14:19, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as more precise and accurate Atlantic306 (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as fits within the given category. No opposition to recreation of the current category as a parent if additional non-football amateur topics are created. SFB 14:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as "amateur clubs" could just as easily contain amateur theatrical clubs as football clubs.-- Toddy1(talk) 03:04, 9 May 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete, early closure per WP:SNOW. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grammatically problematic title aside, the category just begs for POV additions, and categories have for years been used to surreptitiously slap subjective labels in articles in lieu of proper sourcing. I'm not saying that's what the category creator was doing, I'm just noting the high potential and attraction for abuse. Anyway, who determines what a "flop" is? We don't even allow this sort of commentary in articles because it contravenes both WP:NPOV and WP:TONE.
Additional problems exist across Indian subject articles, as labeling of all kinds are epidemic. (Hence all our ArbCom rules about castes and such.) In the context of film articles, marketing teams working to promote articles love to label things as "all-time blockbuster", "blockbuster", "super hit", "hit", etc. People working against a film will be more prone to label them "flop", "disaster", "failure", etc. None of these superlatives tell us anything useful, and there's no objective way to quantify the difference between a flop and a failure, so labels like these (and by extension, categories like these) are totally inappropriate for inclusion at Wikipedia. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per rationale. Agree on all points. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 03:26, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Surely if a film is a flop it is NN, so that there should not be an article on it. However, this has the feel of a PO|V-category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Before someone creates 'Wikipedia categories that were flops'....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:03, 7 May 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 21:53, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are locational categories which require a locational emphasis, rather than nationality ones. This also clarifies the categorisation of people from cities of countries of which they are not nationals. This reflects the standard set at parent Category:Sportspeople by city or townSFB 02:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The outcome of this discussion should deliver a standard which will also impact the naming of all categories in Category:Sportspeople by country and city plus the below categories, which are already named in the style I am suggesting. Not sure how to add these to the nomination if I am proposing no change for those? SFB 21:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not sure I understand this. These aren't categories for footballers who are visiting or staying there temporarily, but for towns and cities that the footballers are from. If they weren't from the town or city, but playing for one of the locality's football clubs, they would be categorised by the club, surely? Sionk (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: Some people fitting the the definition of "people from" aren't of the nationality of that place. For example, Phil Babb is a footballer from Greater London. He is not an English footballer. SFB 21:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, Phil Babb is a British footballer that has played for Ireland. Though I take your point that people can change their nationalities in later life. Sionk (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:06, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - putting aside the serious BLP issues with these kind of categories (ie how do you define that a person is 'from' somewhere, other than relying on place of birth, which for many is not where they grew up etc.) the purpose of these categories is to show where a player is from. The new proposed names are ambiguous, as, for example, it will make every player who has played in a club based in London eligible for inclusion, which is not the intention. GiantSnowman 08:11, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman:"People from" is the standard form for every category stemming from Category:People by city. I'm simply looking to align the above. Feel free to nominate that tree for deletion if you feel there is a BLP issue there, as virtually every BLP is within that tree at the moment. SFB 21:20, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I have been a consisten opponent of the tyranny of demonyns. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support I've checked a number of the categories and the daughter categories appear to be of the type "footballers from city"; since one can be from a city but not be a national of the country (Foo) the WP:BLP problem exists, to the extent being Fooian is contentious, by calling someone a Fooian just because he or she is "from" a city in Foo. Many people from City, Foo are not Fooian as jus soli is generally not the law in much of the eastern hemisphere. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, User:Good Olfactory while he was active has been advocating an all-inclusive view of the nationality categories: if people have lived in country Foo but have not acquired Fooian citizenship they are still allowed in the tree of Fooians; if people have not lived in country Foo but do have Fooian citizenship they are also allowed in the tree of Fooians. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Late to the party, but support. "X by city or town in Foo" is a far better formulation, as it avoids the problems with "Fooian X from Y" where you have national team players not born in a country. Also, as pointed out, the proposed alternative is widely used for other categories (even more so now, since I created more before I found out this CFD was in progress!) Grutness...wha? 12:45, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's easy enough to remove the category if that's the way the !vote goes. As to creating the category, this discussion is over a month old and the last comment on it was over a week ago, at which point the !vote tally was 4-1 in support. I assumed it had been closed by now. I'd also forgotten that (an almost empty) category Category:Welsh footballers by city or town already existed when I made the category. Grutness...wha? 12:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And if it helps in the long-overdue decision on this set of categories, football is almost the *only* sport not to have "Bar by city or town in Foo" as standard (the only other exception is Category:Mexican baseball players by city). The count, over all sportpeople categories, is:
Fooian bar players by city or town: 12 (eleven of the twelve categories in the nomination plus the Mexican baseball category I mentioned above)
Bar players in Foo by city: 1 (the Israeli one in the nomination)
Bar players by city or town in Foo: at least 120 (across 80 countries and about ten sports)
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:no consensus. I checked and the discussion has been listed on the article alerts pages for WikiProjects History and Gymnastics, but that has failed to generate any more participation. If anyone wants to re-nominate this, I suggest manually placing notices on those projects' talk pages. – FayenaticLondon 22:04, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the articles included is on the history of gymnastics - it's just a wrongly capitalised location for a few German trainers and Ancient Greek articles. SFB 01:15, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. The articles are about history, aren't they? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I don't think it's useful to place any past competition, athlete or trainer into a history category. They are better placed in the competition, athlete and trainer categories. The only other content after that are ancient Greek ones, which seems to be a case of grouping by similarity in name alone. Greek gymnasiums are of no profound connection to modern gymnastics. Consider the fact that content like Platonic Academy is now in the gymnastics tree. SFB 15:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the ancient Greek articles can be categorized more specifically. I don't have a strong opinion about the other articles (they are mainly about people playing a role in the history of gymnastics/sports in general, but not being sportspeople themselves), so I'm curious to see what other editors think. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 8 May 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 22:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although the word athletics is often used to describe ancient Greek sport, it is ambiguous in modern terms. The broader term sport will resolve that and also be a clearer definition as the current category includes things like chariot races, which are not understood as a form of athletics in modern times. SFB 00:29, 5 May 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.
