Category:American sportspeople of [European] descent[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.
The result of the discussion was:Upmerge all, though a rational enough argument has been made to relist the specific basketball category separately under it's own nomination, which I will do.. Courcelles 09:22, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Standard WP:OCAT by ethnicity. WP:OCAT states: should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. and If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created.. These categories seem to fail both of those prerequisites. There's no way British American sports or Armenian American sports can be legitimate articles. Also, because these are "descent" categories... the only requirement for inclusion is that the sportsperson has some ancestor of this ethnic background (mother, grandmother, great-grandmother). Pretty silly stuff. Few (if any) people search for a sportsperson based on their ethnic background. Bulldog123 23:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:American people of Armenian descent and significantly prune for any article that just has an Armenian name and no source or claim stating heritage.--TM 23:53, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also nominating all related categories in tandem. Bulldog123 00:01, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
do not delete; upmerge to parent 'American people of xx descent' categories. No parrticular reason for this level of detail. Hmains (talk) 03:25, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge but this is going to be an annoying task. Just in case, it should also be upmerged to Category:American sportspeople (though that will probably involve no more than a handful cases). Note also that the above list should include the Scottish, Welsh and English subcategories of Category:American sportspeople of British descent. Pichpich (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think a strong argument can be given for keeping American basketball players of European descent since they are certainly not the norm. Generally speaking minority groups in a certain profession (i.e. African Americans in nearly every sport and other examples) have been kept in the past. That being said, I personally wittled down that category from more than 100 supposedly "white" players to include only the articles which had an assertion of European ancestry, which included a number of players (like Carlos Boozer) who would not be traditionally called of European descent.--TM 14:59, 22 February 2011 (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:do not rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Without specifying Devon, I can easily see articles meant for Category:People from Biddeford, Maine placed in this category. TM 23:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not anymore--TM 16:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong - moved it back to Bideford. If you are going to rename an article, and your move is completely unnecessary as yours was, then please propose that it be renamed rather than act unilaterally. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 17:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. As with Armbrust, I can't see what the confusion will be if the parent article is Bideford and the two towns have different spelling. --Simple Bob a.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 17:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per Armbrust and Simple Bob. The two towns have different spellings. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Categories sometimes need a county/province/country even where the main article has none, notably Birmingham. Since the spelling differs, I think this ine can be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2011 (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. Courcelles 09:31, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not really sure what this cat is trying to achieve. It seems to be WP:OVERCAT and non-defining. There are no other categories (that I could see) that group x relgion by cinematic depiction.Lugnuts (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another slightly more indirect example of this obsessive ethnicity/religion/orientation categorization gone amuck. Bulldog123 02:44, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of real definition. I thought that the category would have Muslim films, but the articles I sampled made it clear this was not the case. The articles did not seem to have any context matching the category, either. I'm assuming that it's based on a film having a Muslim character or something similar, and I don't think that's a sound category to have. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:11, 17 February 2011 (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: I did not know that there was a series called "Primeval" and I if kept think this category could use a disambiguator of some kind, to make it clear that Primeval is a proper noun and not an adjective, in this case. But I think that deletion is in fact the best route, as the sole content of the category is List of creatures in Primeval, which is a list of real dinosaurs that we are not going to want to categorize by their appearance in a TV series, surely, as a kind of prehistoric WP:OC#PERF? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining; the list should be adequate.- choster (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has nothing to do with primeval creatures, every creature that existed before history/humans/civilization/the modern age should not be categorized into this category. Real creatures that the TV show featured should not be categorized into such a fictional category, as it is a non-notable association. 64.229.100.61 (talk) 05:36, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do not allow performance by performer categories, so that this will not get populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:40, 21 February 2011 (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:Upmerge. Dana boomer (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward keep. I'm not sure how more specificity hurts here. A player will only be in one category (either "players" or "players of (country)") for a specific WBC, and sorting by country seems like it helps rather than hurts.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, that makes sense. Changing my vote to merge as nominated. I agree that country of origin categories aren't needed.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Up)merge per nom. I agree that subdividing Category:World Baseball Classic players by year-and-country instead of year, country, or year and country (separately) overcategorizes players by a characteristic which is not necessarily defining. Having played in the World Baseball Classic is defining, having played during a particular competition probably still is defining, and having played for a particular country may or may not be defining (see below for some thoughts), but having played during a particular competition for a particular country is not defining. Although it is possible to also upmerge to by-country categories, such as Category:World Baseball Classic players of Australia, it seems unnecessary to me (though I've no strong objection). To my knowledge, players generally compete for their home country, so an Australian having played for Australia is neither surprising nor significant. Also, biography articles generally have other categories that indicate nationality. Note that upmerging will not result in a loss of information, since the year-and-country information is preserved in 2006 World Baseball Classic rosters and 2009 World Baseball Classic rosters. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:19, 1 March 2011 (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. Courcelles 11:13, 24 February 2011 (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. Courcelles 11:14, 24 February 2011 (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. Ruslik_Zero 08:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Intended use completely unclear. It has existed for a long time (4 years), but is presently empty. I am not nominating for C1, due to its age. — This, that, and the other (talk) 09:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per C1. The age of the category has no relevance. ArmbrustTalkContribs 16:37, 18 February 2011 (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:Delete. The name of these categories is inaccurate and possibly unnecessary. The certifier has nothing to do with these albums and/or singles except that they certify them gold, platinum, etc, for which the parent categories Category:Singles by certification and Category:Albums by sales certification already exist. It is not an album by a certifier in the same way as it is an album by artist or album by producer. An album can be certified by a number of different associations and it is still the same album, while a different artist or different producer of the same material makes it a unique album. At the very least, a rename to something such as Category:Certified albums or Category:Certified albums by association is in order. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:42, 16 February 2011 (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.
