From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 30 December 2 >

December 1

Category:Live Well Network affiliates

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Defunct diginet affiliation is not a defining category, and the network disappeared in February 2020. Raymie ( t • c) 22:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: On top of the other concerns, the only pages in the category at present are seven of the stations that still carried at the end (and its transformation into Localish) — all of which are part of ABC Owned Television Stations, the Disney/ABC division that ran Live Well Network (and still runs Localish). This de facto overlap with the division's own category only emphasizes the non-defining nature of the category (the diginet's non-ABC-owned affiliates, while still listed in a table in the network article, had this category removed from their articles long ago). -- WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:47, 1 December 2020 (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:TVS Television Network affiliates

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Network syndicated only occasional sports programming. This is a very obvious non-defining category! Raymie ( t • c) 22:29, 1 December 2020 (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:The NHL Network (1975–79) affiliates

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Raymie ( t • c) 22:10, 1 December 2020 (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.

University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Induction into the University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame is a not a defining characteristic for its honorees. Thus Category:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members should be deleted. Category:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame serves no purpose other than contain the former. Please also see a related template discussion: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 December 1#Template:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame. Jweiss11 ( talk) 21:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Keep Category:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame members ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs); Delete Category:University of South Florida Athletic Hall of Fame ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs). No need for both, but having one is fine. Geolojoey ( talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Listify Both Every single one of these articles is already under the Category:South Florida Bulls team category and those recipients are already listified in the main article. We previously deleted other team specific hall of fame categories here and here per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both per nom and RD. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete after listifying as usual with OCAWARD categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 12:19, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both. For this type of award, a simple list article is sufficient. Other types of navigation (categories, templates, etc.) are not necessary, as this award is not significant enough to warrant them. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 11:58, 8 December 2020 (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:American Baptists by state

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 to Category:Baptists from the United States by state or territory. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: September 2017 creation conflicts with decision of June 2006 and most recent decision of November 2016. American Baptist is any of several denominations (see disambiguation). The parent is Category:Baptists from the United States.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 21:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That is also a good possibility. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:36, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Agreed. Since that's the direction taken in recent CfD, I've modified the proposal. Rather a lot of others to redo, though.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 18:40, 3 December 2020 (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:Tamil archaeologists

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, merging content to Category:Indian archaeologists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles. Not appropriate to designate archaeologists by ethnicity Rathfelder ( talk) 19:03, 1 December 2020 (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:Professional Rugby union leagues in Americas

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: manually merge. Everybody (including nominator) wants to delete the mis-named category. The question is whether there is an agreed destination. At the time of closing, there are only 2 entries remaining. Therefore manual merge. (non-admin closure) William Allen Simpson ( talk) 21:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm leaning more towards delete but this could fit under the current scheme with the likes of Category:Rugby union leagues in Africa, etc. I don't think there needs to be a "North America" and "South America" split, though. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 18:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
There's no such place as Americas. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 19:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete on WP:SMALLCAT grounds even though this is a rename - there's a couple of options here on how to fix this up, but Major League Rugby is already in the United States category making this duplicative, and the South American league can simply exist in the Rugby Union Leagues - I don't see any reason to further subclassify. Furthermore, we don't have any "professional" league categories I know of, so we can't keep it as it is even if it's not deleted SportingFlyer T· C 23:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Manually merge per SportingFlyer. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:37, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename -- There are not enough to need a split, either north/south or pro/amateur. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as per nominator - this is part of an established category tree and therefore WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete two articles do not justify a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I'm less shocked than I should be that I have to ask if you're familiar with the SMALLCAT exemption. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:09, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I'm sorry, but renaming makes absolutely no sense here. This isn't a part of a "larger organisational scheme" as there aren't that many rugby union leagues and they don't need to be diffused. We should also upmerge Rugby union leagues in Africa. Countries which have more than five leagues would be eligible for a subcat. SportingFlyer T· C 13:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Agree, Rugby union leagues in Africa should be upmerged as well. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:19, 28 December 2020 (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:American Catholic writers

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 as suggested. There is a consensus that they should be merged by no consensus on exact name. So, defaulting to the old name. Ruslik_ Zero 17:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The nominated category was recently created with only one article in it. The article could just as well belong in the target category. While the nominated category is more broadly worded than the target category, I'm guessing that the intention for both was basically the same. (There was a discussion to rename the target category here, but it was not renamed.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I am also okay with reverse merge. There is also no reason for a fork with Eastern Catholics. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:10, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Creator is attempting to slowly eliminate "Roman Catholic" because he doesn't like it. I would support creating Category:American Eastern Catholic religious writers. Elizium23 ( talk) 16:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 17:43, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. The single article is about a Roman Catholic priest, who belongs in Category:American Roman Catholics. Oculi ( talk) 22:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support This is a duplicate category, with the same scope as the older one. Dimadick ( talk) 20:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge. per Johnpacklambert. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ☖ 04:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse Merge (or Merge) I think the new category name is more descriptive of the actual contents. By all means, combine in some form though regardless of what title we end up with since these are clearly duplicates. RevelationDirect ( talk) 14:53, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge. The older name is indeed more precise, and avoir confusion between authors who actually write about religion and authors who have a religion. Also, introducing a confusion with Eastern Catholics does not seem necessary. Place Clichy ( talk) 02:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support more accurate. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge for preference; certainly merge somehow. Peterkingiron ( talk) 21:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I see a merge consensus of some sort forming, but the question is, which way should it go?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • That is a very fair point. In everyday language Roman Catholic is used as a synonym of Catholic. Wikipedia is probably quite unique in equating Roman Catholics with people of the Latin Church. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • There is not a Catholic Church with a subset called the Roman Catholic Church practicing the Latin Rite, and Wikipedia should not try to create one. Roman is related to Rome. Latin is not a synonym. Looking at the history, it was the often contentious Mayumashu ( talk · contribs) who started that Latin Rite linkage, was reverted, then others did it (and were reverted) again in 2013 and 2015. More recently, they've tried a disambiguation page, and been reverted.
    Since the Protestant Reformation, nobody in Western civilization recognizes a "universal" Catholic Church, with Bishop of Rome "primacy" over all other Christian churches. It has been even longer (1054) with the Orthodox Catholic church.
    While Roman Catholic is currently a redirect to Catholic Church, until 2006 it was a redirect to Roman Catholic Church. It had to be protected because of POV forking. Meanwhile, Roman Catholic Church was moved to Catholic Church in 2009 after mediation. Very reasonable, as they officially call themselves "Catholic", while everybody else calls them "Roman Catholic". That's a good usage of redirects.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 21:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- While I have not checked the scope of the target, it appears to be about writers on religious subjects, but the two people in the subject category did not just write about religious topics, though they may have done so from a religious POV. We might rename the target to remove "Roman", but that is a discussion for another day. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Yeah, but they're different !votes so there's no attempt to stack the deck here. I, for one, am curious what @ Peterkingiron: will think of these categories in a few more days, maybe "delete both"? (-: RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I've also duplicate voted on relisted noms on accident.- RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge for preference; -- Just N. ( talk) 12:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Reverse merge especially in the US the common name is clearly Catholic. We have made the relevant parent Catholic Church. As I have said others there are lots who feel the use of "Roman" is meant to be pejorative, and in common US speech it is so common to mix the ethnic group of a person with Catholic (thus Irish Catholics, Polish Catholics, German Catholics, etc.) that some people I have known, who were very well educated with deep knowledge of Spanish, Latin and Greek, have on hearing people speak of "Roman Catholics" assumed this was an alternate way of referring to "Italian Catholics". Wikipedia uses common names, and at least in the US the very clear common name is Catholic. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • On further reflection I already did an unsigned vote. I still hold that Catholic is the most common usage. That is my very heavy experience. Even growing up in the Detroit metropolitan area, where Eastern Rite Catholics may outnumber Western rite Catholics. The fact that many of my friends who were in theory Eastern Rite Catholics normally attended western rite churches tells me that some of the claims as to how much we need to distinguish eastern and wester rite Catholics are just plain false. It is one religion in many key ways. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:09, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Second !vote. You've already opined earlier, without removing your previous !vote.
      William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:30, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Nota Bene: John Pack Lambert is the creator of the disputed category. As noted by Elizium23 above, this seems to be a series of removals of distinctions between Orthodox Catholics and Roman Catholics.
    1. This is Wikipedia. Our naming conventions are based upon cited references, not personal experience. We already have a well developed article: Roman Catholic (term).
    2. John Pack Lambert's personal experience notwithstanding, he's wrong about usage of the term Roman Catholic, and about it being the same religion. If it were, there wouldn't be so many dozens of sects. People disagree.
    3. I've also spent my life in the metro-Detroit area. I'd grown up in a community heavily populated by Germans, Italians, Polish, and Ukrainians. They always distinguished between Roman Catholic and Orthodox. Especially the German Lutherans and the Ukrainian Orthodox.
    4. My ancestors were founders of the First Baptist Church (Detroit, Michigan), as well as in Ann Arbor, Farmington, Pontiac, Waterford, and others. As I've already noted, Protestants officially use the term "Roman Catholic". According to Religion in the United States: roughly 48.9% of Americans are Protestants, 23.0% are Catholics. Thus, a majority of Americans use "Roman Catholic".
    5. Published literature distinguishes Roman Catholics. For example, You can lead Roman Catholics to Christ, by Wilson Ewin (1961).
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
This is creating a number of misunderstandings:
1. We have an article Roman Catholic (term) which basically says that it is a POV term.
2. This discussion is not about sects. This is just about Catholics who use different liturgies in their services, dependent on their nationality or ethnicity. Very comparable to German Lutherans and Norwegian Lutherans.
3. This discussion is not at all about the Eastern Orthodox Church, it is utterly confusing to bring that up, the Orthodox Church is completely separate.
4. As far as I am aware, no Protestant denomination has an "official" use of either term. In contrast the Catholic Church does have an official use of Catholic Church.
Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • If you misunderstand, I'll try to do better:
  1. Roman Catholic (term) currently has 127 references, and contains statistics about usage of the term around the world. That is not a mere Point of View. This reflects actual practice, based upon cited references. Appropriate for Wikipedia.
  2. The official POV of the infallible Pope Pius XII was that "the Mystical Body of Christ and the Roman Catholic Church are one and the same thing." That is, the POV that there is only one "Church" for all followers of Jesus of Nazareth, the Bishop of Rome is the head of that "Church", and official ecclesiastical documents often record that POV. Wikipedia does not use the article name " Church" in that manner. Nor is it appropriate to lump all sects under one uber-category. It is disrespectful.
  3. John Pack Lambert tried to use anecdotes about his personal experience as evidence, citing the metro-Detroit area. I'm from that same area, and can give anecdotes that contradict his.
  4. Many/most religious people (including members of the Orthodox Catholic Church, other Orthodox churches, and all Protestant churches) use the term "Roman Catholic" to distinguish those who are members of a church affiliated with, and subordinate to, a headquarters in Rome.
  5. As to official Protestant usage of the term, I'd not intended to make this an essay with references, merely giving one published example. As another example, "Lutherans believe Scripture alone has authority to determine doctrine; the Roman Catholic Church gives this authority also to the pope...." For further explication, please look yourself for works of major publishers, such as Moody Bible Institute and Zondervan. Try Wesley's Letter to a Roman Catholic (1749), or Can A Christian Remain A Roman Catholic by John Phillips (1982). Having been raised on such as these, I'm trying to be understanding of somebody without my deep background.
  6. The target Category:American Roman Catholic religious writers was explicitly named and restricted to religious writers long ago in CfD 2011 February 4. As noted in the OP, a later attempt to rename was rejected.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 20:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The only thing that this makes clear is that the term Roman Catholic has been used as a synonym of Catholic. The point of the discussion is that Wikipedia categories use Roman Catholic as a synonym of Latin-rite Catholics only, with the exclusion of other Catholics who just as well recognize the pope as the head of the church such as the Maronites. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Certainly "Roman Catholic has been used as a synonym of Catholic" (or vice versa), but that's very often incorrect. Wikipedia should be following the cited references.
  1. To read my examples as saying there is a single Catholic Church, that they sometimes call the Roman Catholic Church as a synonym, would be to assert that those authors are ignorant. Martin Luther was a former priest. John Wesley was the founder of Methodism.
  2. The Maronites are another excellent example, and I'm fairly familiar with them via a college housemate. Maronites (and Copts, and so many others) are autonomous. They have their own patriarchy. They sit beside, not under, the Bishop of Rome.
  3. There are also many religious distinctions between the sects, such as full communion versus partial communion.
  4. The idea that there is a single unified "Catholic" church is egregiously POV, maintained by a church hierarchy under Rome that is still upset about events over the past 1000+ years.
  5. The idea that there is a single unified "American Catholic" religion is ahistorical and repugnant.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ William Allen Simpson: #2 makes it again very clear that this is not your domain of expertise, to put it mildly: the Maronite Church belongs to the Catholic Church, while the Coptic Church does not belong to the Catholic Church. This is a just as big mistake as earlier coming up with the Eastern Orthodox Church. Yes Maronites are autonomous as a particular church, but that is within the broader framework of the Catholic Church. Regarding #3: all particular churches within the Catholic Church maintain full communion with each other, there is no discussion about that. I have no idea what you are trying to say with #1, #4 or #5. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I'm just going to outright guess that Marcocapelle was raised a Catholic of some sort, coming from that POV.
  1. I've spent my life around a diverse religious community, where I grew up, where I went to university, where I live now.
  2. While I'm professionally an engineer and a musician, I'd long ago taken a comparative religions course. So I've some basis of knowledge.
  3. As a musician, I've performed at worship services of Roman Catholic and many Protestant denominations. Although Shrine of the Little Flower (my childhood local parish) is a notoriously conservative parish of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Detroit. Half the kids in my neighborhood went to parochial school.
  4. My Maronite housemate always insisted he was not a Catholic.
  5. My background is American Baptist, raised in a North American Baptist Conference church. As I've mentioned, my maternal ancestors founded First Baptist Church (Detroit, Michigan) in the 1820s. My paternal ancestors were most recently Scottish Presbyterian, before coming to America, but once upon a time were Jacobites.
  6. When they are being nice, Baptists use the term Roman Catholic. Otherwise, they call them Papists. Also, the Whore of Babylon came up in church often.
  7. For a different perspective, there's a Guardian article today about a town council recommending "Roman Catholic teaching materials", instead of the official Scotland courses.
  • This is about American "Catholic" religion writers. "Roman Catholic" is what the world calls them. "Roman Catholic" is what newspapers call them. "Roman Catholic" is what books call them. It is not a mere synonym. Wikipedia should be following the cited references.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 22:11, 28 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ William Allen Simpson: your guess is wrong, I have just been reading how the Catholic Church has organized itself. The fact that it contains 24 particular churches was new to me too, initially. I hope you took the time to read something as well by now. That is better than just relying on what people tell you. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:06, 29 December 2020 (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:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger

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 17:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: recreation of category deleted at 2020 May 22#Category:Pupils of Nadia Boulanger. Oculi ( talk) 12:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The category was not deleted out-of-process, nominator provided the link to the CfD discussion. There was clear consensus to delete. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The category was deleted via cfd, recreated out-of-process by MuzikJunky, deleted by Hyacinth and then recreated as part of a bulk recreation. See page log. Oculi ( talk) 12:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I see. Still, in the one proper discussion we had there was clear consensus to delete. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comennt: If you wanted me to believe in and respect Wikipeida's process this whole debacle has been ridiculous. I created a large category structure, for which I was punished; and then when I attempted to destroy the parts of that infrastructure which I had created, once that category structure was deemed invalid, I was punished. Again. So my question to people involved in this dispute is whether or not teachers matter, or if education is completely useless and that "classical music", based on tradition, and education, or is field where tradition and education do NOT matter. Hyacinth ( talk) 22:41, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. I don't think it's an either/or of the information mattering or not mattering. There are other ways to present this information in Wikipedia, such as a list article (as we have, see here) or in the article Nadia Boulanger. The question is not whether the information matters. It's whether it is appropriate to present the information in category form. I don't really have a view on that issue, but I take issue with deletion of a category being equated to meaning that the information doesn't matter. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:03, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, I think. If the opportunity to study with the most influential teacher of composition of the twentieth century is not a defining moment for a composer or musician, I really don't know what is. Grove has 202 mentions of Boulanger; one is the page on her, another that on her sister, and a third has a mention of a library holding of their papers. As far as I can see (I haven't checked them all), the other 199 are mentions of her influence as a teacher, which is clearly seen as significant by numerous different Grove authors. Yes, we have a list of her students, but is adding that list as a See-also to 225 articles really preferable to having this category? If the answer is "yes", then that should be done before the category is deleted. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 09:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- This in effect an alumni category. Boulanger was an extremely important music teacher. The number of people categorised as her pupils speaks for itself. I would not want to see a similar category for every music teacher. Normally, we would have a normal alumni category for the music college, but this is an exceptional case. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this, and all the rest of the tree. Better a list with citations, and only with citations. Speaking as a former music major and professional musician, most folks don't spend a lot of time defining themselves by who taught them. Lots of mentions of where they studied of course, and prior locations or organizations or recordings. So I once took a master class in conducting with Sixten Ehrling, played (as a trombinist) under Ceccato and Dorati, and sang and recorded (in the chorus) under Neeme Jarvi (and Kurt Masur, among others). As did many. Nobody has written an article about it. Then again, like nearly all of my mentors, I've spent most of the rest of my life in a completely different field.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy Delete Per WP:G4, since this was deleted in CFD |just this year. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and listify maybe; -- Just N. ( talk) 12:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete people by specific teacher should be included in a list with citiation, not in a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:10, 10 December 2020 (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.

Basketball players by city or town in the United 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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply

Propose upmerging into respective state-level categories, then deleting per multiple precedents and discussions on city-specific 'basketball players from X' categories. Previous relevant CfD discussions here and here relating to Portland, Oregon.

SportsGuy789 ( talk) 20:12, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply

  • Keep Category:Basketball players from New York City New York is large enough to have it's own category Luis9595 20:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Note to closing admin, this user is the creator of the NYC category under discussion. Rikster2 ( talk) 12:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete parent cat, NYC and LA per nom, Keep Washington DC as effectively a state. Per existing consensus. There is also a “creep” that inevitably happens with these categories that is best avoided. “sportspeople from Foo” is sufficient categorization. Worth noting that no other sport has these categories (the LA categories for baseball and soccer also created today notwithstanding). Rikster2 ( talk) 23:54, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - the ones for NYC and LA were deleted via 2009 March 10#Basketball_players from specific cities. Oculi ( talk) 00:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep there are 21 categories in Category:Basketball players by city or town. I see no reason to target the US categories specifically. This should be part of a larger discussion about city-profession categories. Lastly, the basketball culture of specifically New York City is well-known and researched. For example, just this year, William C. Rhoden published City/Game: Basketball in New York. Slam (magazine) published about the top players from New York City [1]. The same can be said of Los Angeles. [2] [3] [4] As such, these combinations are "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right" and should be kept.-- User:Namiba 02:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment - Thats an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. And I bet if you check all of those were created after the previous CfD discussions cited by the nomination. So they could have been nominated for CfD as well if someone had stumbled across them. The nomination could probably be expanded, actually. Also, should be noted this user is the creator of the LA category we are discussing. Rikster2 ( talk) 12:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I'm not arguing that they should be kept because other categories exist. I am arguing that they should be kept because NY and LA represent unique basketball cultures that have been written about at length in independent sources. Certainly moreso than Category:Sportspeople from Wyoming. If there is a desire to delete city-profession categories even ones that are unique topics such as these, then I don't favor a piecemeal approach to do so. There is no rationale for deleting only the US categories and not the two dozen around the world. As I wrote above, "this should be part of a larger discussion about city-profession categories."-- User:Namiba 15:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Also, just looking at that category, there are some major cities that may support a basketball category (like Manila), but the we already have the exact problem of “scope creep” that I fear. Take a look at the two categories in Category:Basketball players by city or town in Albania – neither of these cities produce a critical mass of basketball players (currently 9 and 10 articles in them). If we do keep these categories I think a threshold needs to be determined for when a city warrants a sport-specific and when it doesn’t (whether by coverage in reliable sources, minimum number of articles, etc). Rikster2 ( talk) 12:45, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
That is a reasonable standard. Not every city has a unique basketball culture that is defining of those who come from it. Major metropolitan cities like New York, Los Angeles, Manila, London, Paris, Beijing etc, these categories make sense. For smaller cities like those in Albania, they probably do not.-- User:Namiba 15:31, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
You'd think so, but is "basketball players form London" actually a city that has volume or a basketball culture? I would say no - basketball is not a major sport in the UK. On the other hand, "Footballers from London" makes perfect sense. That's why a standard is needed. Rikster2 ( talk) 15:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
It's a far shot saying that "basketball culture" is stronger in London or Manila than in these cities in Albania (which are not small BTW, they are the largest and second largest). I'm not precisely sure about Albania, but in neigbours Serbia and Greece they are craaaaaaazy about basketball and it means a lot more to them than it does to the average folk in London, Paris or Beijing. I guess that the only reason these cities pop up here is because they have large People from categories which some editors feel the need to diffuse into undefining subsubcategories, which is a wrong solution to a non-existing problem. It is probably better not to go down this route at all. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Comment If these categories are deleted, they should also be upmerged to the appropriate city categories. However, there is a big problem here: New York City sportspeople have been sorted by borough e.g. Category:Sportspeople from Manhattan. Short of deleting these categories and merging back into the already excessively large Category:Sportspeople from New York City, a manual merge to the individual borough will be necessary.-- User:Namiba 18:40, 12 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete. Los Angeles and New York City Basketball players categories were previously deleted after this CFD[[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_10#Basketball_players_from_specific_cities|2009 March 10#Basketball_players from specific cities]]]. WP:G4 still applies and I've tagged both categories for speedy deletion.Delete per multiple prior discussions in addition to the Portland one cited above. Here [5], here [6], here [7], and here [8]. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:34, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Speedy deletion doesn't make sense. That discussion was 11 years ago. Consensus changes. Looking at this discussion, there is no clear consensus yet. Policy-based reasons have been made for keeping the categories and those need to be addressed. I suggest you revert those tags and let this discussion play out.-- User:Namiba 14:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Size is important, and capable of reasonably objective measurement. The notion that some places have a unique culture in a particular sport is interesting, but not very objective. If there are more than 600 articles about basketball players in New York City I think that justifies a category. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:30, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It should be noted that the much-touted 'consensus' that the opponents of these categories allege is at least seven years old. There have been no policy-based reasons to oppose the diffusion of these categories. Their arguments essentially amount to WP:IDONTLIKEIT.-- User:Namiba 18:49, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • There has never been any time limit on consensus. But that's why we have the discussions. Rikster2 ( talk) 19:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. These seem to be viable categories with a suitable scope. They should not have been deleted in the previous discussion either. Dimadick ( talk) 20:35, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • What "should" or "should not" have happened is never applicable in consensus-building discussions, especially when the previous discussion is 7+ years old. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 23:05, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Back in 2009, they should have, simply because there was no tree of similar categories. That tree now exists though. Wikipedia in 2020 is a lot different from Wikipedia in 2009 in terms of scope and categorisation. Grutness... wha? 03:32, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The categories are defining and have been extensively covered as a defining characteristic in books, including those identified by Namiba. Alansohn ( talk) 21:03, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep These are useful categories, no reason to upmerge or delete, especially considering how many Basketball players are from New York or California. Personally I'd set the bar for cities as being a million people, so we can create cats for Chicago, Houston, and Philadelphia, but not Baltimore, Pittsburgh, or Portland. Just my two cents. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 02:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom We've always used WP:OCAT and to a lesser extent WP:OCLOCATION when dealing with these, and while we've had some proliferation of categories over the years and those discussions were a long time ago, we've traditionally used "Sportspeople from X" instead of "Sports players from X." "Basketball players from Shkodër" under the Albania tag is the scope creep we're aiming to avoid here, which is also "large enough to have its own category" if we're going to be overcategorising in this way. Avoiding over-diffusion is the basis on which the previous consensus relied, and I don't see any reason to change it now just because there are a large number of basketball players from New York City, and it "seems" like something we should be doing. That being said, if this is kept, we need clear guidance on when this is okay and when it's not, because we're going to have a lot more Shkodër-style categories for all sports, for something which is arguably non-defining. SportingFlyer T· C 00:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Are you aware of Category:American architects by city, Category:American film directors by city, Category:American photographers by city, Category:Rabbis from New York City, Category:Journalists by city, Category:American television anchors by city, Category:American composers by city et al? There seem to be hundreds if not thousands of these categories, most of which are much smaller and less independently notable than those proposed.-- User:Namiba 03:17, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I notice that User:Namiba also created Category:Players of American football from Los Angeles a couple days ago. Better to wait for this discussion to reach consensus one way or the other before rolling out any other similar categories. Cbl62 ( talk) 04:12, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - resulting upmerged categories would be too large. Le v¡v ich 05:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Los Angeles has over four million people, far more than the population of many states. Los Angeles County has over ten million people, more than Michigan or New Jersey. Los Angeles has a distinctive basketball culture, and California is so enormous that it has four NBA teams, two in the north and two in the south, and more notable college basketball teams than you can shake a stick at. The size and significance of the state justifies this type of subcategory. It is entirely reasonable that readers doing research on the history of basketball in Los Angeles will find this category useful, and I see no convincing reason to delete. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment This is breaking keep, unfortunately ignoring WP:OCAT. Where an athlete is from isn't defining, and I want to predict that this new category structure will become very unwieldy very quickly. SportingFlyer T· C 11:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
You are ignoring that players from major metropolitan areas are often defined from that location. As I cited above, cities like New York and Los Angeles have unique sports cultures (particularly in basketball) that have been covered as unique topics in their own right. A player from New York City is in part defined by their city much more so than a player from any given state. Can you show me a book about the sports culture of Wyoming, Idaho or Oklahoma? This discussion does not ignore WP:OCAT. However, I do agree that we should place a higher standard for the creation of these categories. Perhaps a 20 article minimum to prevent every small and medium-sized city from getting subcategories?-- User:Namiba 12:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
20 articles would be way too low a bar for these categories. It should probably be 100 minimum. But a better metric would be that the intersection is defining. And yes, sportspeople from the 50 states are defining characteristics. Most states have sports halls of fame (examples: 1 and 2) and articles and books are written about the top athletes from each state, such as when Sports Illustrated did this years ago. Rikster2 ( talk) 13:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
The problem is carving out an exception for WP:SMALLCAT for these sorts of articles would go against norms generally and lead to a mess at CfD ("SMALLCAT says this" "but we require 100 per this LOCALCONSENSUS" etc.) If we ignore the sports element for a second, we have: Category:American people by occupation and city. A couple of those (chefs) should probably be deleted, but looking at that category it's clear we avoid intersections by specific profession and local geographies. I know this seems useful, but it's no different to "Jazz musicians from New York City" or "Comedians from New York City" - two categories which would probably have a lot of entries, but that we've avoided so far due to WP:OCLOCATION. SportingFlyer T· C 14:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Is this discussion only about the USA? There are many countries with less population than New York City. There are more than 1300 in Category:Footballers from Glasgow - more than the population of some villages. And I would like someone to explain how the sporting culture of places is to be objectively assessed. In the English cities in which I have lived it always appeared to me that the footballers identified with the cities. All the coverage of Marcus Rashford mentions that he comes from Manchester, as he does himself, frequently. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    Marcus Rashford's entire club career is for Manchester U. That's probably more defining that being from the city. It may also not be completely without influence to the fact that local media or Rashford himself would appear to make a great deal about it, probably more than they would identify with the same strength Eric Bailly with which city in Côte d'Ivoire he is from. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/delete per nom. The ambiguity that comes with being from a city does not make this a good categorization level: does it mean that they were born there, grew up there, lived there, for how long, or played in a club there? Professional sports players usually switch allegiance when they change team, so categorization by other characteristics (team, position, international play etc.) is probably more valuable than the city (cities) people are "from". Place Clichy ( talk) 03:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Following through on the nom's proposal would mean removing them from the city categories entirely. Is that what you support? There are many thousands of "from" categories. Do you propose we delete them all?-- User:Namiba 03:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
It would mean removing almost everyone from the city categories, not just sportspeople. The same argument can be made for academics (where they were born, studied, or taught?), politicians, clergy... once you start removing one profession from a city category, you can start making exactly the same arguments about almost every other profession. Grutness... wha? 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
If it is defining, I do not mind a basketball player being placed in Category:People from Los Angeles (or Category:Sportspeople from Los Angeles if that's part of a strictly limited number of ) next to basketball categories. However, the intersection is OCAT in my opinion. Place Clichy ( talk) 17:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
and would you care to come up with a non-subjective way of working out whether the connection is defining? Grutness... wha? 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It is difficult to see why sports players should be put in enormous categories and not classified by where they are from like everyone else. I guess the people of Abidjan are interested in Eric Bailly's career if they follow football, but why does he have to be in the same category as chess players from Abdijan? And if the place they are from is not defining for a person then they should not be in it. We do not categorise everyone by their place of birth. "From" in thei context is completely ambiguous. It may well mean where they did whatever made them notable. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:35, 16 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • It's equally perplexing that several of the commenters above seem quite happy with basketball players categorised by state, but not by city. All the arguments against one are equally arguments against the other, and all the arguments for one are equally arguments for the other. Grutness... wha? 16:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Not really - generally that is how basketball is considered, and that is backed up by evidence. Most regional “basketball hall of fames” are at the state level (examples here and here and here) and you generally see books and magazine articles written about basketball at the state level as well (examples here and here and here). Also, high school recruiting classes are generally grouped by state (examples here and here and here). State groupings are the norm. I believe there are some exceptions that take this intersection to the city level (and maybe NYC and LA are two of them), but they are absolutely exceptions not the rule. Rikster2 ( talk) 15:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC) reply
        • It's actually fairly common to group players by their city instead of by state, at least for areas with large cities. For example, Atlanta [9] [10] and St. Louis [11] [12] to name two random cities. This makes sense because basketball is a historically urban sport.-- User:Namiba 12:23, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply
          • But I wouldn’t say it is more common. I was responding to someone basically saying it is unusual to categorize basketball players by state. It really isn’t. Also, I do think you need more than just local sources to illustrate that basketball by city is defining. I think you got closer to this with your NYC examples, but a St Louis media source talking about St. Louis players doesn’t show much. Plenty of small towns/areas talk about athletes from their areas too but that doesn’t make it a notable intersection outside that area. The 2 Atlanta links you provided go to the same target, btw. Rikster2 ( talk) 13:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply
            • I wouldn't argue that it is more common but that it is also common in major metro areas, which is why these categories should be kept. Pardon my mistake with the link above. Here is another link on Atlanta's basketball history.-- User:Namiba 14:16, 26 November 2020 (UTC) reply
              • "Not really - generally that is how basketball is considered", "I wouldn’t say it is more common" - I suspect that these comments may be true in the US, but they certainly wouldn't be worldwide, which is why these categories make sense. Grutness... wha? 06:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC) reply
                • Well, not all countries have prominent states/provinces so that would make sense. And we are talking about US cities in this CfD. But perhaps countries that have prominent states/provinces should be treated differently. By the way, do you have any evidence that City (vs State) is how basketball players are considered, or is that just a suspicion? I provided evidence. Rikster2 ( talk) 11:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- Upmerge and Delete and Keep as OP. English Wikipedia traditionally has categorized whence folks came by state, even though they might very well say about themselves, "I'm from Detroit", when they are actually from a suburb. Also the categories should be limited to where folks originated (as in born and raised), not where they played (as that changes constantly and is already covered by team membership categories).
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 19:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Actually @ William Allen Simpson:, it traditionally has categorised by state for the US, and by city for almost everywhere else in the world. As such, most sportspeople have traditionally been categorised by city first. No-one has yet explained why the US should be different. Grutness... wha? 04:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Never-the-less, there are currently only 2 cities and 1 territory in this category. Many/most entries do not belong in them anyway. Two adjacent examples:
  1. LeBron James is inexplicably listed as " from Los Angeles". He is not, and should not be a member of the category. He's from Akron, Ohio. He played for a team in Los Angeles, and that is already covered by Category:Los Angeles Lakers players. Note he is also in Category:Cleveland Cavaliers players.
  2. Kareem Jamar was actually born and raised in LA, covered by Category:People from Venice, Los Angeles. But he played/plays in Austria, Cyprus, Greece, Israel, and Ukraine. Contra @ Grutness: in the "rest of the world", no city mentioned among them.
William Allen Simpson ( talk) 12:05, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Miscategorisation is not, and never has been, an argument for deletion of a category. Neither has the lack of other categories of a similar type - and given that there are so many other categories the basketball players (and other sportspeople by sport) by city outside the United States, it could easily be argued that there should be more, not fewer, categories like this for American basketball players. Grutness... wha? 14:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Most people, and their biographers, refer to people as coming from cities, even if they actually come from some neighbouring town or village. Quite a lot of people, certainly in England, do not even know which official area they live in, so my neighbours in Wilmslow often say they are from South Manchester. I see the same in the USA. I read about people from Detroit, not people from Michigan. While I am sure official sporting organisations are run on the basis of defined areas like states and counties it doesnt follow that our categorisation has to follow. Of course this may be rather inexact. But categorisation has to be pragmatic. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I would be careful of applying British norms to American subjects. The UK does not have prominent states/provinces so of course the city is more prominent. Counties aren't typically where people are referenced as being from in either place. Rikster2 ( talk) 13:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Of course that may be true. But I've read many thousands of Wikipedia biographies of all kinds and the vast majority locate the person as from a city or town if there is a connection. Very few locate them in a state, territory, region or the like. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:31, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I have already given examples of basketball players categorized by state. City isn't irrelevant, there are just other categories for that (like "sportspeople from City X.") The issue is to what level is the occupation/city intersection actually defining. Rikster2 ( talk) 20:04, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I don't think anyone ever said that city is never mentioned. They sound like sportspeople from St. Louis, Baltimore, Oakland in that context just as easily as "basketball players." It's not like their city of origin wouldn't be noted in their categories. Rikster2 ( talk) 13:56, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The fact that they are basketball players and not just sportspeople from that particular city is defining. That St. Louis is in Missouri or Baltimore is in Maryland is less defining than their sport and city combination.-- User:Namiba 17:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • And you substantiate this by ... what exactly? I mean, the articles happen to be about basketball players and talk about their personal connection to ythe city. But again, to me it seems like you see the same stories about boxers, football players or track athletes all the time. Rikster2 ( talk) 17:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Exactly. That is what I am arguing. Basketball players from X and Players of American football from X are valid because sources regularly show that they have strong connections to particular cities, not just the state as a whole.-- User:Namiba 18:29, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Well then that isn't "exactly." The mentions of the city are generic - nothing unique about basketball vs. other sports. Those stories show a "sportsperson from city x" to me - that adequately covers off what that shows. You were more convincing when you were sharing sources that arguably show that being a basketball player from certain cities generically (NYC, LA) is actually defining. These stories don't show that any more than someone trying to make the case that a story about a "high school sophomore from Topeka" category is needed instead of "high school students from Topeka" because the article mentioned their class. These articles are adequately covered by categories as (for instance) Jayson Tatum is already in "sportspeople from St. Louis" and about 10 different basketball categories, including from Missouri. Rikster2 ( talk) 20:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • How could it possibly be relevant that a person is a sportsperson from the city but not that they are a basketball player from the city? And what use to navigation is there in throwing all of a city's sports players into one undifferentiated category? Grutness... wha? 03:06, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • People who swim, play bridge or run marathons dont have much in common with basketball players. Why do they need to be put together? Rathfelder ( talk) 14:07, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Because cities celebrate their athletes broadly and the question is if the particular intersection of specific sport and city is DEFINING. That’s supposed to be a key reason categories exist at all. Rikster2 ( talk) 14:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Can we have some evidence of a city which celebrates poker players, gymnasts and footballers together please? It certainly doesnt happen where I live, in Manchester, which is as proud of its sportspeople as most places. Rathfelder ( talk) 19:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
So User:Rikster2, you support keeping the NYC category, right? [16]-- User:Namiba 19:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I could. If we are saying that the reason we keep is that the intersection is defining as based on reliable sources and that similar city categories that CAN'T produce such sources should be deleted. We have already seen this creep in other categories (and in other basketball by city categories frankly). Is that the basis on which you argue for keeping it? Rikster2 ( talk) 20:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- These are all well populated, so that the effect destructive of detail. It would be different if they were small categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • This has become a complete mess. Looking at Category:People from New York City by occupation, occupation seems defining, specific occupation does not seem defining. Perhaps we should have a larger discussion of what sorts of occupations can be categorised at a more visible forum, since if we subcat basketball players, I think that would allow fiction writers, jazz guitarists, et cetera. SportingFlyer T· C 13:02, 8 December 2020 (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.

1 and 2 article Municipal Award subcategories

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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCLOCATION
I created the Category:Municipal awards parent category but the whole tree only has 17 articles total so far and about half of those are under the New York City and Tel Aviv subcats. Obviously I have no conceptual objection to categorization by country and city, but I don't think the WP:SMALLCAT exception for "a large overall accepted sub-categrization scheme" applies when the whole tree has been anemic since it was created back in 2011. No objection to recreating any of these categories later if they ever get up to 5 articles. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:28, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
I should have mentioned that the 4 actual articles here are all already under an award by country category. RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I could have checked that too. In that case the dual merge suffices. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:01, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 15:18, 1 December 2020 (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:Fictional murdered people

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. – Fayenatic London 10:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. ★Trekker ( talk) 03:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this is a container category. Where do its subcategories go? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 22:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Being murdered seems pretty defining to me, since it's how the character ends. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Good Olfactory: How? Its fiction, characters get brought back from the dead all the time, it even a trope in comics. ★Trekker ( talk) 16:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Well, as I said, if it's the end of the character, it seems to be defining to me. If it's not the end of the character, then obviously it's less so. I'm not opposed to deletion, and if most of the articles are of the latter type, that's fine. For some of the articles I looked at, being murdered really was the end of the character, at least so far. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per GOF, possibly purge articles about characters raised from the dead. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:14, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 14:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak oppose I can see how this might be defining for characters whether they stay dead or not. If they stay dead, obviously that's part of their character history and a big one at that. If they manage to come back from the dead, it's very likely this might fuel some kind of need for revenge. I don't really have any policy or guideline-based reason to resist this, just thought I'd throw in my two cents upon relisting. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 14:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: One of the two subcategories is on its way to deletion. The other is on its way to be upmerged here, although the closing has taken a rather long time (since Nov 10). But I'm afraid that trying to categorize the very many dead characters in the many books and films will be a never ending task.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 20:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Premature Conceptually favor deletion but I think we should let the subcategories play out before we act on the parent category. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:32, 4 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose It can be a significant element of character history, thus a defining trait. A resurrection does not invalidate this aspect. Dimadick ( talk) 00:08, 7 December 2020 (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:South Korean television series based on non-South Korean television series

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:South Korean television series based on non-South Korean television series. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree ( talk) 13:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: in the "Israeli" category, there is one page, meanwhile "Taiwanese" has 2 pages. So, those categories shall be merged into "South Korean TV series based on non-South Korean". St3095 (?) 06:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom, but merge the former to both parent categories (I am not sure if a dual merge is appropriate for the second category). Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support There probably is scope for expansion, but we don need to create subcategories for every country of origin. Dimadick ( talk) 00:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom; -- Just N. ( talk) 12:38, 7 December 2020 (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:Banjar

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per main article Banjar, West Java. 114.79.7.112 ( talk) 05:24, 1 December 2020 (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:HBO Family

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Category:HBO Family

Indian magnetic persons

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 The Bushranger One ping only 02:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories are duplicates, but neither is really needed because all they contain is Arun Raikar, which is also in the parent Category:Magnetic persons. I'm unsure if the parent category should be deleted, but at least these two should be. (Note that I have nominated these two plus the parent category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all three Human bodies displaying magnetic properties is, as demonstrated at our very article on the subject human magnetism, pseudoscience. We cannot and should not have categories for unverified, let alone pseudoscientific, abilities that are not proven to exist and that in fact are directly proven to not exist. Everyone shown thus far to be "magnetic" has been shown to have other properties that may allow for "magnetism", such as sticky skin or skin with a high coefficient of friction. These categories assume a defining characteristic based on incorrect reasoning; how much sense does it make for a category to assume a defining trait to be true when it isn't and, if anything, is completely accounted for via other factors? Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 14:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all three although I see that there are now 2 people.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 04:41, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Subcategories for an already small parent category? Dimadick ( talk) 00:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom; -- Just N. ( talk) 12:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Just N., @ Marcocapelle and Dimadick: please specify whether you would delete the parent category, since it is also tagged. – Fayenatic London 11:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I would Delete it as well, unless there are sources verifying the existence of human magnetism. Dimadick ( talk) 11:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Yes Delete, also because the category content has already been listified in a section in the main article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:53, 8 December 2020 (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:Bosnian Genocide deniers

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. Users can remove articles that do not belong. There was some support for a rename. This is probably best pursued in a new nomination which can focus on the renaming issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category has serious issues with WP:NONDEF, WP:BLP, and WP:VERIFY/WP:OR. I will give some examples:

If purged of all problematic entries, the category would fall under the 5-article minimum. Also, this category is going to continue to be a magnet for VERIFY and BLP issues, so it's best to delete. ( t · c) buidhe 01:32, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply

  • I have slightly adapted my comment, as I am neither insisting to purge all articles that nominator mentioned nor suggesting to limit purging to these articles. Just generally, only keep biographies in the category insofar if they are defined by this characteristic. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per WP:NONDEF, WP:BLP, and WP:VERIFY. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 11:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep and possibly rename as Category:Deniers of the Bosnian genocide - this is utter cynicism, nominator created this report after receiving a tip from Amanuensis Balkanicus, an editor who is a POV pusher of Serbian perspective on Yugoslav Wars, and implicated in meatpuppetiering, leaving messages like this to their fellow (pro)Serbian editors, in this case Sadko, who suddenly appears here and leaves categorical "Delete" without a word of argument ( they removed the AB's message after reading it); and then like this, after the issue was raised by Maleschreiber at the talk page of admin Drmies, who warned them of canvassing and tag-teaming on highly sensitive topics, adding that what they did "was partisan and not neutral" - just like here (I am going to follow Drmies advice to Maleschreiber, however, and take this to ARBMAC). So, any closing editor owes us to look at articles in question, and should also check Bosnian genocide denial for further info on deniers (article of GA standings, read by dozen of senior admins during the nom process). Marcocapelle and I didn't see eye-to-eye recently, but in this case I partially agree with the editor. However, as far as "purging" is concerned only Robles BLP lacking any mention of Bosnian genocide denial, but that article is placed under AfD by above nominator anyway. Any removal of the following: Thomas Deichmann, Mick Hume, Lewis MacKenzie, Edward S. Herman, Michael Parenti, Vojislav Šešelj will be meat with harsh but challenge befitting en.wiki policies and guidelines - these BLPs discuss Bosnian genocide denial and, unlike Sadko's deceiving remark regarding WP:VERIFY, are all verified with serious scholarship properly refed (if not they will be). As for WP:NONDEF and WP:BLP, genocide denial is, infact, rarely a defining characteristic of career politicians, writers, etc., and these guidelines didn't stand in a way of creation of Armenian genocide deniers category and inclusion of more than 25-30 BLP's, half of which have no mention of Armenia let alone discussion of genocide denial in their respective article-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 14:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I have subsequently included renaming proposal, and reworded "oppose" to more fitting "keep".-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 08:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment this is WP:OPINIONCAT and if kept needs to be reworded as Category:Deniers of the Bosnian genocide as these folks aren't, by and large, Bosnian. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Comment @ Marcocapelle:, @ Carlossuarez46: - Marcocapelle I assumed that your suggestion is in general terms. Carlossuarez46, Marcocapelle that's not an easy task, to follow the guideline of "defining characteristic". When I was creating the category, I didn't do it from the top of my head, I went a long way to check how these categories are being established (and filled in) in other genocide examples (Holocaust, Armenian, Greek, etc.): I looked for the general practice used to create "deniers" cat, I checked individual articles, and so on. Going down that road (paved with WP:OPINIONCAT and WP:NONDEF) would take us to a grey zone and very award position, where 90+% of all BLPs included into these categories, across the articles on genocides, should be removed, as most of them don't even mention denial of any kind, the rest are BLPs of authors who wrote a book(s), or essay(s), or espoused these perspectives in some ways, etc - also, I am not aware of anyone whose activism is tied to denialism, per WP:OPINIONCAT. It's complicated issue, and I gave my best not to make controversial and outright disputable inclusions.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 23:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and maybe Rename to Deniers of Bosnian Genocide. Category:Bosnian genocide denial already exists so I don't see what makes this category less legitimate than its parent category.-- Maleschreiber ( talk) 00:34, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Bosnian genocide denial does not define people by their opinion in violation of WP:OPINIONCAT. ( t · c) buidhe 07:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
      • So, I suppose you would consistently apply same standards to Category:Genocide of Serbs in the Independent State of Croatia deniers‎, which is created to include 3 / three BLPs; than, Category:Armenian Genocide deniers‎, which include 25 / twenty-five BLPs; Category:Holocaust deniers‎; Category:Nanjing Massacre deniers‎ - they all fail, a great deal, to adhere to all above mentioned guidelines.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 08:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
        • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a very weak argument. Are these people defined by their positions on these topics? There are many deniers of many things but that usually doesn't define them (ready for Category:Deniers of Biden's win of the 2020 US presidential election?) Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:19, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
          • @ Carlossuarez46:, first of all, that was not my main argument anyway, but you are absolutely right on WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS being a very weak argument, but when used under specific circumstances, concerning unique and/or singular issues - say, "you should(n't) include person 0x into X cat/list because similar person 0y is (not) included elsewhere in Y" - this is different, and a matter of principle that should be practiced uniformly - it is not as if I am referring to some previously established precedent, it's the other way around, you are setting a precedent with this category - the rules should apply only to this one, and not to every single other category out there (I sincerely doubt that someone is going to fix this problem with several dozens of articles included into all those other mentioned categories). Are these people defined by this characteristic? Well, if you campaigning for political position using denial, if you write a book or two in attempt to create revised narrative using denial, if you write a story denying genocide that becomes an internationally famous scandal and trial on the court of law, that eventually causes collapse of one media outlet/magazine, if you are accused war-criminal who sits something like 10 years in Hague's jail, and your trial is televised as you loudly and clearly deny genocide on every opportunity in the court-house, and continue with the same for years afterwards as politician in your home country - are you defined by this denial, then?!-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 20:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
          • @ Santasa99: not necessarily; we don't generally have the big Nazi defendants in Holocaust deniers categories because most are better placed in perpetrator categories but also defendants in high profile cases are expected to deny everything. Fundamentally, being a XXX denier should be limited to folks who are best known for that position, otherwise you have no end of opinion categories such as could be constructed e.g., Category:Homosexuality is not a choice deniers; see Category:Flat Earth proponents doesn't have anyone who is better known for something else. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC) reply
          • @ Carlossuarez46:, I understand and agree with you, in principle. However, the reality is that, and let's stick with deniers specifically, all deniers have been categorized with at least two defining characteristic categories - all of them are Cat:denier but first (and most likely primarily) Cat:historian/writer/politician, and so on.-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99° 14:14, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • As to the assertion that specific articles don't contain the words "denier", or that it is somehow not "defining": for example,
    1. Vojislav Šešelj is included in A Biographical Encyclopedia of Contemporary Genocide and Genocide in Bosnia: The Policy of "Ethnic Cleansing". He denied there was any genocide or ethnic cleansing in court. The court cases are nearly the entirety of the article.
    2. Michael Parenti has written about the "siege of Sarajevo as perfectly reasonable." It is the top publication for this author.
    3. Edward S. Herman "criticized the validity of the term genocide in the case of Srebrenica." And co-authored a book, The Politics of Genocide, the most recent listed publication.
  • Every article I've checked has had a fairly specific reason for inclusion: they deny there was a genocide.
    William Allen Simpson ( talk) 00:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I followed the sources for Srebrenica Genocide deniers and this category could be further increased(with persons). For that reason I think this category is necessary. Mikola22 ( talk) 14:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or improve articles - Information that are not covered in the article, and especially those that are not sourced, should not be included in the categories. More importantly, we must be careful in the case of WP:BLP. Also, Category:Flat Earth proponents is the perfect example of WP:NONDEF. Buidhe is an extraordinary editor, one of the most prominent in the Holocaust and genocide topics. Furthermore, it’s very sad to see nationalist and political prejudices again on Balkan topics. Assuming good faith is one of Wikipedia's fundamental principles. It’s not ok to label and accuse other editors. ( WP:AVOIDABUSE) Highlighting the editors' presumed origin as an explanation for certain actions is an example of racial discrimination, which is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia! I think we really need to work together in a synergistic manner to improve the articles. I appeal to everyone to resolve the disputes by consensus in a calm atmosphere, in a civility and cooperative manner. ( WP:CIVIL, WP:DISPUTE) -- WEBDuB ( talk) 18:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC) reply
I don’t think from what I see that he was talking about Buidhe, but I agree with you that we should keep this civil, professional and explain why we oppose or support and not just blindly support Balkan “teams” or accuse others which you are right has always been an issue when RfCs or Page deletions arise in the Balkan arena. However there does seem to be meatpupetying at times when voting blocks turn up so I get Santasa99’s point there. Also articles should be verified yes. OyMosby ( talk) 19:42, 3 December 2020 (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:Recipients of the Order of Mono

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
When foreign leaders visit Togo, or vice versa, the Order of Mono is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Kim Il-sung, Levi Eshkol and Josip Broz Tito are not remotely defined by this award. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:11, 1 December 2020 (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:Recipients of the Silver Buffalo Award

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 9 December 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCAWARD, WP:OCASSOC)
The Silver Buffalo Award is an award for adults from the Boy Scouts of America. Readers of Walt Disney, Ronald Reagan Nancy Reagan, George W. Bush, Douglas MacArthur and Zig Ziglar will be baffled to find this category at the bottom of those pages since the articles make no mention of the award (or even Scouting in general). Where Scouting is mentioned in these articles it usually sounds like WP:OCASSOC: Hank Aaron was a member in his youth, Tom C. Clark made it to Eagle Scout in his youth, John Glenn was in a similar organization in his youth, while Roy Chapman Andrews was made an "honorary scout" as an adult. To be fair, there a few articles here defined by Scouting like William D. Campbell, Norman Rockwell and Rex Tillerson, but they are already well categorized under the organization. All the winners are already listified here in a separate list article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:11, 1 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_December_1&oldid=999530875"