Category:Lesbian-related television episodes[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:merge. I did consider the CFD November 6 closes in coming to this conclusion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Another newly-created MaybeMaybeMaybe category that divides an already small category into what I'm assuming is a planned four miniscule categories. There is nothing in the way that lesbians and gay men were treated on an individual episodic level that justifies splitting them out by sex. I have asked the creator both here and on hir talk page to stop creating these categories until these various discussions are concluded. Buck Winston (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
note that the nominator emptied the cat on nominating MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 23:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the category creator is not being truthful. I did not remove The One with the Lesbian Wedding but I did remove several others that I believe based on the content were miscategorized by the category creator. There is no rush to populate these categories so I do not understand why the creator cannot save everyone time and trouble by waiting a few days for the outcome of these discussions. Buck Winston (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a valid intersection. If deleted, then also upmerge to the other parent Category:Lesbian-related media. The nominator is giving the appearance of wanting to empty the latter category structure. – FayenaticLondon 09:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please point to the body of research that suggests that lesbians in individual episodes of television series are portrayed in ways that are so fundamentally different from how gay and bisexual men, bisexual women and transpeople are portrayed that a separate splinter category is warranted. And I will thank you to refrain from falsely ascribing some nefarious motive to me for nominating this category. Such false accusations are an abject failure to assume good faith. Buck Winston (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is it Category:Lesbian-related media that you are referring to as a splinter category? If you intended to refer to the nominated category, please note that it is an intersection rather than a splinter.
Objectively speaking, you have consistently given the appearance described above, by nominating intersection categories to be upmerged to only one of their parent categories. Moreover, your argument against this category seems to support that interpretation of your goal.
As for the other editor's action in populating categories under discussion: as I understand it, that is not in breach of any policy, and if anything tends to be desirable in order to show whether a category's existence is justified by its potential population. If we end up with a decision to empty and delete it, then that can be done by a bot and requires very little effort. Note that you have argued WP:SMALLCAT at another CfD on this page; it's not consistent to argue SMALLCAT and request other editors to desist from populating a category during discussion. – FayenaticLondon 13:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Am I to take it from your failure to cite the body of research that shows that lesbians were treated in a unique fashion on the episodic level that you concede that there is no such body of research? As for the supercategory, I have stated in other CFDs that there are some instances in which lesbian-interest media is markedly distinct from gay male-interest media. That the two sexes are treated differently in some cases does not mean that they should be separated in all cases. There is, again, no evidence that lesbians were treated uniquely at the episode level of television. This category serves no encyclopedic purpose. Buck Winston (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have not looked for research into the issue. I just see an intersection category that looks valid to me. If it's too specific an intersection, then it is desirable to upmerge to both parent categories rather than just one, otherwise information is lost from the encyclopedia. – FayenaticLondon 17:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffers from the same problems all the "related" categories do: how "related" must it be and what reliable sources tells us (a) that that amount of relatedness is significant somehow, and (b) each item in the category is at least that much related. Very SUBJ. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not every possible subset of a larger set warrants a category. There needs to be evidence that the intersection itself is studied. Buck Winston (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the sister categories for gay-related television episodes and for transgender-related television episodes were both deleted at CFD November 6. For this final splinter category to come to a different result requires a strong showing that lesbian-related television episodes, among all of the rest of the LGBT acronym, have the requisite specific critical attention contemplated by WP:CATGRS. "Valid intersection" doesn't meet that standard and neither does "keep per so-and-so". Buck Winston (talk) 23:31, 24 November 2012 (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:British gay-related television programmes[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. As with the lesbian-specific categories down the page, these are overcategorization in violation of WP:CATGRS because there is no significant role played by gender in the portrayal of homosexuality on British television. The other category is also nominated for merger. The parent is unnecessary as any shows within it (there are two) can happily be categorized as "LGBT". Not everything has to be split by sex; in fact most things shouldn't be. Buck Winston (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the body of evidence that indicates that gay males were or are treated so differently in television from gay females and bisexual males that a separate category is warranted. Buck Winston (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no knowledge of the subject; I'm just seeking to preserve information within the encyclopedia, rather than selective upmerge to only one parent category. – FayenaticLondon 17:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps then you should defer to people who do have knowledge of the subject. Buck Winston (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but if we only commented on the basis of personal knowledge rather than applying policies or precedents, who would comment on specialist-subject XfDs like Category:Operator topologies? Nevertheless, I invite the closer to treat my comments with lower weight, as I have not assessed whether any television articles within Category:LGBT-related media should be categorised within Category:Gay (male) media or other specific sexualities; I was just taking a general line on upmerging to both head categories for an intersection category. – FayenaticLondon 14:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my above comment on the Lesbian "related" shows. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although it's late in the nomination, because an editor has been populating the Gay-related programs category I have switched the proposal to merge only so that any articles placed in the splinter category will end up back in the parent. Otherwise the arguments against the categories remain the same. Buck Winston (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: (i) I only just noticed that the CFD notice on the page was not linked to this section on the CFD page until today. This may mean that people who would have commented have not found the discussion. (ii) The sub-cat Category:American gay-related television programs was nominated at CFD Nov 2 but that was closed as "no consensus". For both these reasons, re-listing or a fresh nomination of all three might be in order. – FayenaticLondon 19:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD has been open for 26 days, over three times the usual length. That is more than enough time regardless of any technical flaw in the nomination and I object to relisting or starting over. There is clear consensus here for removal of the categories. Buck Winston (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
With only four participants, I think relisting is in order.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2012 (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: To the best of my knowledge there has been only one colliery in Greater Manchester - Agecroft Colliery. Why have a category for only one colliery? Parrotof Doom 22:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There's a bigger issue here: how to categorise things that ceased to exist before 1974: in the historic county, the present day county, or both? Potentially many other articles currently in Category:Coal mines in Lancashire could be placed in this category instead or as well. There's a related discussion only just recently begun at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lancashire and Cumbria#Historic Lancashire and categorisation, so it seems a bit hasty to delete this category before that discussion comes to a conclusion. -- Dr Greg talk 22:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator, a better category would be Category:Collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield as every colliery but one was closed before 1974 and that one remained open for a short time after that. All sources refer to Lancashire.J3Mrs (talk) 22:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but possibly rename. These coal mines are in the area which is now part of Greater Manchester, and should be categorised under that area, because the current administrative divisions of England are the basis of all our geographic categorisation in England. Taking the coal mines out of that geographic structure removes from the standard geographic framework.
Comment It is extremely misleading to categorise collieries as being in Greater Manchester as it did not exist when the collieries were working. All sources refer to Lancashire or the Lancashire Coalfield. If anything they are Category:Former collieries in Greater Manchester but Category:Collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield is preferable. I don't understand categories but added what was available when I started quite a few of the articles. Perhaps the mess needs sorting out for all collieries and to categorise them by coalfield seems the most sensible way to go. J3Mrs (talk) 21:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but it is not at all misleading. Category:History of Greater Manchester includes dozens of topics relating to events and entities which predate the creation of GM, but which happened within those geographical boundaries. All these topics are part of the history of Greater Manchester, even if they predate its creation. In the same way, the Battle of Hastings is part of the History of the United Kingdom, even tho it predated the creation of the UK in 1801. Grouping collieries by coalfield is a fine thing, but it should be done in addition to categorising the articles under Category:Greater Manchester. The effect of renaming and repurposing the category as proposed will be that all the dozens of articles which belong in it will be removed from Category:Greater Manchester. If that logic were followed wrt to other topics, then a massive purge of our geographical categories would be required. For example Buckley Hall (demolished in the 1940s) and Hawkley Hall would be removed from Category:Houses in Greater Manchester. Manley Hall would be removed from Category:Country houses in Greater Manchester, the List of monastic houses in Greater Manchester would be deleted, and Category:people from Greater Manchester would be purged of anyone who died before 1974. Please please do not go down this route. Local govt boundaries in England have been revised several times over the centuries. Counties were not just redrawn in 1974; as shown in historic counties of England, there were signifcant revisions in the 19th century. Additionally, city boundaries have been radically revised over the last two centuries. the boundaries of cities Bradford, Birmingham, London have been expanded radically in that period. If we follow the logic of geographically categorising historical topics only according to their contemporaneous boundaries (rather than current boundaries) , then we will have to rip apart the existing categories. Take a look at Category:Military history of London -- out goes Battle of Turnham Green and Battle of Brentford (1642) (not in Greater London until 1965). How on earth does this help navigation? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps I was vague, for which I apologise, I suggest the category Collieries in Greater Manchester be renamed Former collieries in Greater Manchester and a new category Lancashire Coalfield be created, which is not misleading but correct. Closed and vanished stations are categorised as "Disused" so I see no reason why closed and vanished collieries should not be "Former". J3Mrs (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not persuaded that the "former" adjective is needed, because there are no currently-operational collieries which need to be distinguished from the many which have been closed. However, renaming the category in this way is much better than deleting it, so if we can compromise on that new title, we have a way forward. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think that would be the best solution.J3Mrs (talk) 10:18, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason as BrownHairedGirl, I don't really see the need for "Former", but nevertheless I'd be prepared to accept it. -- Dr Greg talk 21:01, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason for this as a one-article cat. Plus the article is not clearly, and arguably not at all, a proper fit for the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose to Category:Collieries in the Lancashire Coalfield. Coalfileds commonly do not stop conveniently at county boundaries. The South Staffordshire coalfield was in fact partly in Worcestershire (though those places are now in West Midlands county). Wyre Forest coalfield stradles the Worcestreshire Shropshire boundary; I could go on. The appropriate way to categorise collieries is by coalfield, but by modern county, particualrly as much of the coal mining took place before 1974, when the modern bounbdaries were established. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--link the categories with {{Catseealso}} —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – there has generally been no consensus to delete eponymous musician categories with 3 subcats, such as this one. The most elegant way to link 3 subcats is via a single parent cat. Oculi (talk) 19:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response At the time, there were only two. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question: what was the 3rd subcat? there are currently only albums and songs. – FayenaticLondon 21:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Songs written by Nicole Scherzinger was the other cat but it had been moved inside the songs category there.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, now also has sub-cats for album images and audio samples. – FayenaticLondon 14:01, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough content to warrant eponymous category. There are no "songs written by" NS that aren't NS songs at this time. Image and audio files are not helpful for readers and has no factor in determining whether an eponymous should be created (otherwise, every artist should have one if that's all it took). An eponymous category should serve readers in finding additional articles related to the topic that you may not easily find from the topic article itself. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She wrote several pussycat dolls songs and the category now has those in it.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2012 (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:merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Upmerge, per WP:SMALLCAT. Even the parent category is currently quite small. In case that gets fuller, this one could be re-created. There is also no "provinces in Africa", they are all in the generic Category:Country subdivisions of Africa. -- ChemTerm (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection in principle to a merger to a more generic term, so it's best to merge to the category which already exists. However, the nominator's use of the term "country subdivisions" seems to be no more helpful here than anywhere, so expect it to be included in a broader nomination to rename categories by removing this construct. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. None of the other continents in the parent Category:Capitals of country subdivisions have sub-cats for a particular term such as "province", so this currently looks like WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. It appears that the nominator created the target, and moved the African categories which were not called "provincial" into it; it probably would have been better simply to nominate the "provincial" category for renaming, but perhaps there was a change of plan along the way. – FayenaticLondon 13:41, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- possibly reverse merge, providing a headnote that it covers regions, states, and other subnational entities. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I am not convinced that the by continent subdivision of categories is as useful as some think though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge not all subdivisions of African countries are "provinces" and focusing on the same name is not meaningful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 13 November 2012 (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.
Propose keeping - I like this way better than those infobox. --B767-500 (talk) 16:31, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Update to propose keeping - Alternative way put language. Infobox way is difficult to figure it out.
For info to others, I referred B767-500 (who created this category) to WP:Babel which explains the existing scheme using userboxes. – FayenaticLondon 21:15, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete redundant. Gsingh (talk) 16:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to existing Babel userboxes. --Kinut/c 00:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is a discoraged labeling of people by not being something (in this case not being a native user of English). Plus the name makes it sound like it belongs on regular articles, which is does not. I figured this was a category to group magazine editors with limited English skills.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lesbian-related television programmes[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I don't believe that lesbians are treated so differently from the rest of the LGBT acronym to warrant separating them out. This is also a small category that is unlikely to expand hugely anytime in the near future. since very few series focus specifically on lesbians to the exclusion of gay and bisexual men and bisexual women. Merge the British sub-category to the grandparent Category:British LGBT-related television programmes again because it's small and unlikely to expand and there's litle utility in categorizing the single show separately. Buck Winston (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have added the newly-created category for American programs and request that no additional similar categories be created until after the outcome of this nomination. Thanks. Buck Winston (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the parent catI think it makes sense to have a television equivilent to the substantial lesbian-related films category.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:38, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument for keeping. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which states that a gendered category should only be made if there is a specific relation of the subject to gender. Unless you can point a body of research that shows that female homosexuals are treated differently on television programs either in the US or the UK from how male homosexuals are treated in those same countries this is overcategorization. The only difference in the way the two sexes are portrayed is that in the past lesbians were sometimes, but not usually, allowed to be slightly more physically demonstrative than gay men, but even that has been breaking down as far back as the final season of Will & Grace. The comparison to the film structure is invalid, because there is a lot of research on the differences in how lesbians and gay men were portrayed on screen.
regardless, WP:SMALLCAT still applies as these are small categories with little likelihood of significant expansion. Buck Winston (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep parent, double upmerge of the national sub-cats to both parents. – FayenaticLondon 21:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the nominator did not specify in the above nomination which target categories he proposed to merge to. I added these here based on his tags on the category pages. – FayenaticLondon 17:58, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please cite the body of research that indicates that lesbians in television series are treated significant;y differently from how gay males, bisexual males or females or transgenders of any stripe are treated to justify gendered categorization per WP:CATGRS. Buck Winston (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2012 (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:European LGBT-related television programs[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename and repurpose. Other than of course Australia LGBT-related TV shows are not categorized at the continent level. Renaming and repurposing broadens the category and brings it in line with the many other "by country" schemes across Wikipedia. Buck Winston (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as MaybeMaybeMaybe has created the target category, this is now a merge proposal. Buck Winston (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As some of the relevant shows are broadly European rather than country specific.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:27, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles supports the view that the shows are "broadly European", whatever that means. Each lists a specific country of origin (except initially Gay Army which did not until I Googled and added it) and most or all of them are in at least one other category by nationality. If these were divided by country we would have several decently-sized categories to group under a "by country" umbrella and people who are looking for shows for specific nations would be far better served by those than by a nebulous "European" category. Buck Winston (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Maybe3. I looked at one page, Gay Army, which says "The show was first broadcast in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. The show has also been sold to Italy, Germany, Canada, and Poland." If this cat is deleted, that page would presumably have to be added to the categories for Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Therefore keeping this category avoids category clutter. – FayenaticLondon 21:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my note above, which I was typing simultaneously with yours. Gay Army now has a specific country of origin and one category for that country of origin. The relevant passage now reads Gay Army is a Danish comedy reality television featuring nine effeminate gay men put into the hands of a drill sergeant. The show was first broadcast in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. The show has also been sold to Italy, Germany, Canada, and Poland, although protests led to the show's being cancelled in the latter country before it aired. It would go into a single category, a newly created Category:Danish LGBT-related television programs, so category clutter would not be an issue. And even if it were determined to be a joint project of the three countries, adding three categories what would then be the article's two (with this one gone) would hardly overload it. It's also currently common practice, when a film or TV series has more than one country of origin through international co-production, to include categories for each country of origin and that apparently is not deemed clutterful. Buck Winston (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, then, to the "by country" category as far as the sub-cats are concerned, and split the articles into a new category for Denmark and the existing ones for France, Germany and Spain. Sorry, I only looked at one, which I thought appeared to back up Maybe's argument, but now I agree with Buck Winston on abolishing this European category. – FayenaticLondon 18:06, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments on the Lesbian episodes "related" above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 13 November 2012 (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.
