Category:Articles lacking medical references or verification[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.
oppose I suggest keeping the template. Looks like the template allows editors to be asked for a important specialised type of reference. There is still much debate within the medical profession about whether enough of the medical topics on wikipedia are conveying information in appropriate way and also making use of up-to-date medical evidence. Underuse might represent lack of awareness. Perhaps the problem is not enough editors identifying where this template could be put to good use? Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:42, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is about deletion of the category and not the template. Are there articles that should use the template that are not? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support removing unused category. No opinion on the Template. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As long as there still exists some category that collects these tagged pages, I don't care exactly which one it is. Therefore, deleting is an acceptable outcome to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It looks like the category has never actually been used. Axl¤[Talk] 21:17, 21 July 2014 (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.
Advocates of population moderation categories[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC. Their creator—based on his/her subjective interpretations—keeps adding those categories to articles that do not clearly support their addition. Plus, those cumbersome terms ("advocates of population moderation" and "people expressing concern about population size") are, in effect, too ambiguous to ever be useful. --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete on second one, it is clearly an overcategorization. The first one should be deleted, but there might be a way to make it work, but I doubt it. We have "activists" categories, not "advocates" ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete both. I think something like Category:Population theorists or something similar would be better - it's not just about people who advocate that we should all have fewer babies, that has been promoted by development economists for 50 years - we need something a bit more constrained.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Population theorists might be ok although I'm not sure I like "theorists". Dougweller (talk) 10:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete opinion categories are basically as bad as "activist" categories, but if one is vocal on the subject, the community seems to like calling them activists, which of course makes them useless - here is where lists would be 100% better. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 20 July 2014 (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:no consensus, leaning towards keep. This case is not like the Filipacchi case, as women and men are still listed together by nationality, specialism etc. At any rate this discussion does not encourage creating any more specific sub-cats of women historians (there is currently one for art historians); nor is there a consensus to create one for male historians. – FayenaticLondon 06:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
oppose the topic of women historians has been the subject of multiple books and scholarly articles. Additionally, since this category has diffusing siblings, it does not violate last rung rule. Thus this category is permitted under WP:EGRS. In the Filipacchi matter the overwhelming consensus was to keep the 'women novelists' category tree and ensure all contents were also in neutral equivalents.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicating all women in a gender neutral category and a women's childcategory is not a very elegant solution. If gender is really a defining characteristic of historians (which I do not know, I mean it's beyond my expertise) then I'd rather propose creating a male childcategory as well and use Category:Historians as a container for both genders. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
if you disagree with dual categorization this isn't the place, that is a longstanding guidance and consensus. Even if you create male you will still dual categorize (see how it's handled in the American novelists tree for example).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:05, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I see what you mean. This (with American novelists) is indeed what I had in mind for splitting male and female. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they're not actually split. All novelists are also in (x-century American novelists). Only actors and sports people are treated with full gender split. But it wouldn't make sense to treat historians as sports stars since historians don't compete in gender-split leagues. The women historians here aren't ghettoized as long as they are in (x-nationality historians) along with their male peers.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Once again, people conflate separate issues for no discernible reason. If this was anything like the novelist categories, you'd be arguing to delete Category:American women historians, which doesn't even exist. There is no gender segregation occurring here. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although doing so may cause people to chant to reopen their witch-hunt against me. This category clearly falls within the current guidelines on EGRS. Those allow for such categories when the topic has been the concern of scholarly study which shows it is of interest as an intersection. We judge each EGRA sub-cat on its own merits, not on the question of whether others exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this category for historians who are women or for historians whose field of study is women in history? If it is intended as the former, it should be called "female historians". If it is intended as the latter, it should be called "historians of women's roles" or somesuch. Is the "scholarly study" referred to by Johnpacklambert in regard to the latter or the former? If it is simply scholarly study of the fact that some women are historians, does that justify having a category as obviously divisive as this one? Nigel Pap (talk) 15:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a category for women who are historians. Generally we use "women" vs "female" when the contents are all adults (we use female for musicians, singers, and sports people - but there's no clear consensus, that's just a rough consensus). In terms of studies, see books like "A "Manly Study"?: Irish Women Historians, 1868-1949" or "American Women Historians, 1700s-1990s: A Biographical Dictionary". There are ALSO a whole tree of Category:Historians_by_field_of_study, but that's not the issue here - this is a category for women who are historians, quite simply. I don't quite understand how this category is divisive?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The category is intended to divide historians into two groups - historians who are women and all other historians. If the intention was to add value by identifying the sex (or is it gender...?) of the historians, we would have "Women historians", "Male historians" (although you would call this "Men historians"), "Intersexed historians", and "Historians of unknown sex". It is literally divisive by design and metaphorically divisive in that there is no corresponding male category. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is disingenuous to use "scholarly studies" of women who were employed in occupations that at the time were unusual for women to justify having a separate category in 2014 when it is not unusual for women to have those occupations. Perhaps there could be a Category:Historical female historians to satisfy whatever need there is to identify those instances? Nigel Pap (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nigel, I would encourage you STRONGLY to assume good faith here. For example this: The category is intended to divide historians into two groups - historians who are women and all other historians. couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the intent of ALL such categories (around ethnicity, gender, sexuality, or religion) is to provide an ADDITIONAL descriptor and grouping. All of the contents of Category:Women historians should ALSO be in the neutral equivalent (e.g. Category:Historians by nationality and others as appropriate)) - that is longstanding policy. Some have argued that if we have (Women X) we MUST therefore have (Male X), but this is simply not how things work here. In some cases we have both - e.g. Category:Male novelists and Category:Women novelists, in some cases we only have one, e.g. Category:Female heads of government or Category:Male nurses. As long as everyone is still in a neutral equivalent, there is no divisiveness here. That said, if you want to make an argument that "Women" + "historian" is no longer a subject of special study, and that women being historians or entering the field of history is no longer relevant, studied, discussed, etc, then you can make that argument. But with the ongoing existence of things like [1] and [2], [3], [4], etc. makes that an uphill battle. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are conflating unrelated things. Women who are historians may have distinct professional concerns and form associations, but that does not suggest that people outside of the profession should view them any differently because of they are women. On the contrary, I believe you will find that these types of associations often exist to address the gender imbalances of professions, not to perpetuate them. Nigel Pap (talk) 16:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what? That still isn't an argument to delete the category. Please read WP:EGRS which contains the guidelines for when such categories can be created. We have around 8000 women-specific categories here. It doesn't really matter WHY such associations and books and biographical dictionaries and conferences and commissions exist - the point is, they study women + historian as a special topic, and that is enough to support a category accordingly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from EGRS there's also the more general requirement that any category should be based on a defining characteristic. So the question is, is the existence of women historians associations sufficient to make gender a defining characteristic of historians? I would rather say no, it's only a defining characteristic if women historians would execute their profession consistently differently from men (study other history topics, have other points of view, etc.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
revising my previous comment. It appears Category:American_historians is "all inclusive" - e.g. all bios in subcategories are also expected to be in the parent. So, yes, Nancy and Anna should be added to Category:American historians. But this has nothing to do with JPL, who simply added a correct category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Obi-Wan Kenobi, earlier you said "All of the contents of Category:Women historians should ALSO be in the neutral equivalent (e.g. Category:Historians by nationality and others as appropriate)) - that is longstanding policy", but just now you say "this has nothing to do with JPL, who simply added a correct category". Johnpacklambert added dozens of women to Category:Women historians. Does he have no responsibility to check that they are also in the other appropriate categories so that his actions are not in effect segregating women historians? If there is no expectation that he or any other editor will do that, aren't all of these "women" categories prone to such situations, even if that is not their intended purpose? Nigel Pap (talk) 17:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that if he added them to "women historians", they were already "historians" elsewhere - otherwise on what basis did he add them? But in general, yes, "women" categories are prone to ghettoization, some more than others based on their structure (see WP:EGRS). Since this particular one has a full set of diffusing siblings, ghettoization is less likely. Anyway, Nigel, if you're really concerned about this, please come to my talk page and I can walk you through some tools I use to help identify and deghettoize categories. There are probably tens of thousands of biographies of women that are ghettoized today in one way or another, but the broader wikipedia community doesn't seem to care that much to actually DO the work of fixing it. If you'd like to help you'd be most welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why assume what is easily checked? I've given you two examples already. I would like to help "deghettoize" biographies of women. I will start by voting to delete this category. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deleting this category would be a good first step to addressing problems that appear to be well-known. Nigel Pap (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused here. Are you deleting this category because you don't believe any women+job categories should exist, or are you deleting this category because you think the intersection of women+historian is not a subject of study or discussion?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you confused about the other votes to delete the category or just mine? Nigel Pap (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reviewing the fact that neither Category:French historians nor Category:German historians were all-include, non-diffusing, I decided to end the similar designation for American historians. Many of the subcategories of the American historians category are specific sub-disciplines that make sense to divide the category into.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:22, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having done much more of the adding to this category than anyone else, I can assure you that this is one of the least ghettoizing categories around. With the number of other historian cateogries someone like Kathleen Flake, Kathryn M. Daynes or Carol Cornwall Madsen ends up in, the reality is that most will be in at least 2 other categories for historians, and Madsen is in at least 3.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, Madsen was actually not in Category:American historians or any of its subcats. I am not sure how this relates to her being in Category:Historians of Utah. I have fixed the oversight and placed her in both Category:American historians of religion and Category:American historians. She clearly deals with religious topics, but her writings on the political historiy of Utah and women obtaining the vote in Utah move beyond the religious frame, although religion still has a place in such works. People like Rachel Cope have focused on Mormon Women's history in a way that is much more religious at core, but I am not yet convinced Cope passes notability guidelines and so have not yet made an article on her. I have to say many of the arguments above seem to arise from a fundamental misunderstanding of what the current guidelines on categorization by gender in Wikipedia are. That we might want to revisit those guidelines is possible, but we should not do so by dismantling a category that has such broad-based support for its existence in reliable sources, or one that so fully avoids ghetoization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Johnpacklambert, do you think the category "women historians" for historians who are women, or for historians (of either sex) whose field of study is women in history? Your comments above suggest it is the latter, but your use fof the category suggests it is the former. Nigel Pap (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then I really don't see what your comments about Carol Cornwall Madsen have to do with this deletion discussion, but I am glad that we all seem to be interpreting the category the same way, as a category for female historians. Thanks. Nigel Pap (talk) 21:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 04:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? I think not, see my earlier comment 17:19 July 14. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP likes to ghettoize folks, so no doubt this will remain although it is 100% improper, unless someone can show that all women historians do things differently (because of their femaleness) than all male historians do (because of their maleness). Which of course is preposterous but no doubt some people think that scholarship by females is less worthy, so categorize them separately. Sad, really. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The very first point in WP:EGRS states "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic.". In 2014, gender is not relevant to being a historian. If gender were truly relevant, we would categorize all historians by gender, not simply separate out the women. WP:EGRS says nothing about "being the subject of scholarly research". It does say "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." but it follows by saying that such categories should not "directly contain individual women or individual men.". As important as female historians have been in the development of of the study of women in history, they are not themselves the subject. Professional associations for women exist for many professions, particularly those which have been historically dominated by men. This does not imply that women in the profession have different professional qualification or function differently than men in the same profession. It simply reflects that women may have different concerns in their role within the profession. The Organization of American Historians has a committee which "engages with all professional issues relevant to historians with disabilities". Should we have a Category:Disabled historians? As you say, "we do not live in a post-sexism world" but we do not need to perpetuate the sexism here. Nigel Pap (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question. This keeps coming up, but I've never understood the responses: (a) why do we say "women historians" and not "female historians" (we wouldn't use "man historians"), and (b) why can't we have "male historians" and "female historians" categories? Doing that would solve all these disputes. SlimVirgin(talk) 17:35, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Several "women" category talk pages link to two previous discussions about the naming. One is from 2007 and the other is from 2013 ([10], [11]). My reading of those discussions is that there is a general knee-jerk resistance to renaming so many categories. The number of cases raised where "women" is a better descriptor than "female" is actually quite small. Perhaps the best way forward is to try renaming a small number of categories before attempting to make the case for changing them all. Nigel Pap (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for those who wonder why we do not always create two systems of division by gender, my best answer is referring them to the discussion of I believe it was Category:Male United States senators.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you might have meant to say "why we almost always create a category for women but not one for men". I was not able to find the discussion you mention. Do you have a link? Nigel Pap (talk) 22:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am still puzzled why this discussion has attracted widespread attention, but that of other similar categories has largely been ignored.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking for myself, I became interested in this following your edits related to the Group of 88. Categories should not be used as tools to advance political views. "Women X" categories are not neutral categories. Nigel Pap (talk) 23:04, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your entire failure to assume good faith is disturbing. This has absolutely no connection to the Group of 88, so you should not have even mentioned it here. Attempts to remove women specific categories have regularly been attacked as sexist, I know because I have been called such on some of my proposals for such, so I think some people need to look at this issue from all sides. Many of the people here seem to be acting like this is a nationality specific category with issues that come with those, this is not. Are people really prepared to say that being a women while being a historian is not a significant intersection that effects the persons career in Afghanistan, Iraq or Egypt? Some of the comments seem to come from a narrow, American view of a discipline that has practitioners from all over the world. Wikipedia is not only supposed to take a broad historical view, but to avoid being biased to the ideas prevalent in a particular place.John Pack Lambert (talk)
You posed a question, which I answered honestly and in good faith. You don't like my answer. Do women who are historians in Afghanistan, Iraq, or Egypt do a different job than men in those same places? Nigel Pap (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator seems to misunderstand the Amanda Filipacchi incident. The issue was never the existence of women sub-categories. It was deletion of women from the parent category, when they were added to the sub-category. Instead of deleting valuable women's categories, it seems we need instructions or specific guidelines that editors shouldn't remove women from parent category when adding to such women's sub-category. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearer principles would help. Sometimes a parent category seems to be a catch all for bios no one knew how to or cared to put into subcategories. Other times it seems like a badge of honor and removal to be "ghettoization". The whole thing seems pretty arbitrary, leading to conflict. If there is some principle, let's make it clear. If not, just say that people can be put in both - because some people ARE put in both - and leave it that way if you find it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the badge of honor interpretation comes from a flawed understanding of how categories work. At least on the ethnic side of things it also at times seems to come from a flawed understanding of historical issues. One question that has never been grappled with by many editors is at what point is it actually accurate to put Native American people into American categories? Does Joseph Brant, who fought for continued British rule, and then went to Canada after the American Revolution count as an American, or was he too much of an Iroquois Nationalist to ever be such? What about Wakara in Utah, does he really count as American, or did he always refuse to see himself as a subject of the US so much that he does not count as such?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 26 July 2014 (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:Proposed public transport in Brazil[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.
Support Open to a few small cats if an overall tree is viable, but not when the whole scheme creates one underpopulated category after another. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This whole "proposed" tree is very suspect. A lot of what's under it isn't "proposed"; it's under construction. When we take that out, we have a big crystal ball problem, as it subsumes things from "there's a project but they haven't quite gotten to digging yet" all the way to "people have talked about building a line from X to Y for years." I don't see how anything but specific projects that actually are building something falls into our purview, and I hpold that mere "proposals" violate WP:NOTCRYSTAL and should have neither articles nor categories. Mangoe (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note - I have merged 3 other discussions into this one; they only had the nomination (1-2 articles in each), and a vote from each of Oculi and RevelationDirect, whch was merely a keep (for Oculi) or merge (for RevelationDirect), reasoned "see above". I can see no reason these should be dealt with differently from each other. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Possibly merge as proposed provided the articles remain in the parent country category for “Proposed transport infrastructure” eg Category:Proposed transport infrastructure in Hungary; so would be a double upmerge. I note that overall the “Proposed category” may include projects under action or construction as well as some which are talked about and may proceed in the future and some were proposed (and perhaps started) in the past but are not expected to proceed now, like country “mixed” branch railway lines for passengers and freight. Hugo999 (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From what I've seen so far, most of the articles are about proposed railways that are currently under action or construction, while only a minority of articles concerns proposed railways that were not executed or cancelled in the past. However, I doubt if we would need a split in the category for this. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all but to "Proposed railways in Fooland". All the content is on railways, but we seem to ahve a duplic\ate tree. All categiories should be paretned to Category:Proposed railway lines by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you mean to upmerge to "Proposed railways in Foocontinent", right? I'm fine with that too. The duplicate tree is dealt with in another CfD already. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 19 July 2014 (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:Rename and rescope - the current scope of the category has only 42 stubs; the proposed scope brings the number up to 64 stubs. I think we should create a {{Wikimedia-stub}} for the rescoped category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:03, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support A rational expansion of the scope to bring in things like Ting Chen and Wikimania 2013. However, most of the cat scan differential is accounted for by websites using MediaWiki, which I think should not be housed here unless some other Wikimedia connection exists. I also approve related movement of {{Wikipedia-stub}} to {{Wikimedia-Foundation-stub}} for clarity if this move goes ahead. SFB 15:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support sounds good; Question would MediaWiki be in scope of the new stub? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:37, 15 July 2014 (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: This category entirely consists of the family of Olusegun Obasanjo and is thus better organised as a family category. SFB 09:17, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support would represent the actual contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2014 (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:Lists of Commonwealth Games medallists by sport[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: There are no other lists by any other method so the two articles can be placed in the parent Category:Lists of Commonwealth Games medallists, which is currently empty. SFB 09:14, 13 July 2014 (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 television stations seen in Canada[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. Non-defining characteristic of these stations; as constituted, the category is also laughably incomplete, as literally a few dozen stations should be in the category rather than three. We already have List of United States stations available in Canada, so proposing it for "listify" isn't necessary — but we don't need the category to match it since it's not a defining characteristic of the stations. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify as List of U.S. broadcast television stations receivable over-the-air in Canada, which is what I suspect the scope of the category is (and as a stub list allows for expansion for exhaustive coverage). This would be different from the list Bearcat points out, as that is for those carried by cable/etc, which does not make it available on rabbit ears. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any TV station within a certain distance of the Canada-US border would be receivable in Canada, so that's not a list that we would particularly need or be able to actually maintain with any degree of completeness or accuracy. Bearcat (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia makes no claims of completeness, and as for the maintainability, it should be easily maintainable, as we are mot keeping a temporal list. We can reference if a station has been received over-the-air in Canada. We don't need to keep track of if we can right now receive it. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Over-border broadcasts is a big deal for CBC and CTV since they buy shows that are shown first in the US.RevelationDirect (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
listify per nom, I realize the list already exists, I'm just suggesting, make sure everything in the cat is on the list and delete the cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a temporary category; cable line up change all the time. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete Category is not well-defined and either duplicates the existing list or represents original research. Mangoe (talk) 00:53, 20 July 2014 (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.
