Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 8 September 10 >

September 9[edit]

Category:Made in Chelsea cast members[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: following consensus at CFD 2016 July 27 for a larger category that had 18 pages, compared to only 5 here. – Fayenatic London 22:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this cat is defining for all its members. These are real people in real storylines and relationships. The show isn't fiction or a competition. Jim Michael (talk) 23:47, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Ultimately, WP:PERFCAT ought to apply here as much as to stage, film and TV performances. Having looked at all 5 articles in the category, all but Pratt are notable only for being in this series, so that it is questionable whether they should have articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT. While people are certainly defined by the general state of having been on a reality show, it is not navigationally useful to subcategorize them by the individual show they appeared on. Bearcat (talk) 19:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, PERFCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:50, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge we categorize people by occupation (even if short lived as many reality show apparences are) and so the target is what people should be categorized by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2016 (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:West Coast of the United States-related lists[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: delete and prune as originally nominated, except prune Category:Regions of the West Coast of the United States as described rather than deleting it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The consensus to delete Category:Parks of the West Coast of the United States concluded that the phrase "West Coast" should be taken to mean the coastal region itself, and not the entirety of the three states that border the ocean, as has heretofore been used. Based on this consensus, the above categories should also be considered for deletion, or at least purged of their broad, state-level subcategories. Ibadibam (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to allow discussion of the proposed refinement of the nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 18:17, 9 September 2016 (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 television series based on non-British television series[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: procedural keep. Marcocapelle's argument is compelling. This nomination fails to include any of the highly-similar sibling categories or even Category:British television series based on American television series, which is a sub-category of the one nominated here. As I see it, my only options are to relist and at least consider the sub-category in conjunction with this one or to procedurally keep the category and allow another editor to open the comprehensive discussion I think everyone would like to be having. The latter seems substantially more attractive given the positions expressed in this discussion. ~ Rob13Talk 16:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF, overly specific categorization. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there are quite a few of these in Category:Television programs remade overseas. Oculi (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, I see. Not sure if it really makes sense to have all of those, but if other people agree then this should apply to the other categories too. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Television programs remade overseas is an export category; this one is about imports. Possibly Category:Television programs remade from overseas. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; the sibling categories should be deleted as well. Television programs are quite commonly based on preexisting source material (other television programs, films, books, comics, real life, etc.) — and it is not a defining characteristic of the shows to group them by whether the preexisting source was "foreign" to the remake or not. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining; and ultimately everything is "based" on something else; whether that something else is or isn't foreign is basically irrelevant. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:51, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment I'd suggest to withdraw this nomination and start a fresh nomination with all siblings included. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 17 September 2016 (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:2017 television series debuts[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: keep. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:CRYSTAL. Plans may change, generally these categories are only added to shows once they have already premiered, otherwise Category:Upcoming television series should be used. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These categories are always added once the series has actually debuted, meaning that this category cannot be used at all this year. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, they're not. They're added as soon as we can reliably source that they've been announced as premiering in that year — if they're pushed back or cancelled before airing later on, then we certainly recategorize them as necessary once that happens, but there's no rule that the show has to have already premiered before we can add it to a debuts category. As long as its year of debut, actual or projected, is properly sourced, that's all we require. Bearcat (talk) 04:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are not always added once the series has debuted. Look at the creation date of Category:2016 television series debuts. All of the articles in this category can be verified as debuting in 2017. "Plans may change" is a poor rationale for deleting a category, as the category can simply be removed from an article that it no longer applies to. —Xezbeth (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As long as the article in the category has a WP:RS stating it will be aired in 2017, there's no problem. Compare Category:2017 films, as an example. Also, this is the parent category for sub-cats by country, which are not tagged for deletion. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:26, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lugnuts: Obviously the nomination means the subcategories should be deleted too. I didn't think it's really necessary to tag every single subcategory, but if you want to do that, go ahead. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, you have to do that as the nominator, otherwise they won't be included. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
 Done nyuszika7h (talk) 13:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While it's true that in some cases the actual premiere date of an already-announced television series is still up in the air, there are also many cases where the date has already been announced. WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit sourced content about things that haven't happened yet; it merely prohibits us from engaging in our own original research speculation about details that aren't definitively sourceable yet. If something changes in the future and a series that has been announced as premiering in February 2017 gets pushed back to 2018 instead, then we can recategorize it accordingly once the pushback is announced — but if reliable sources are currently saying that a show will premiere in 2017, then it's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation for us to say and categorize the same thing that the sources are already saying. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that, but I'm pretty sure WP:TV guidelines say we should only add those once they have already aired, similarly to the |first_aired= / |released= parameter in {{Infobox television}}. I can't find the exact guideline regarding categories (if there is one), but other project editors may be able to help. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • They don't say that. WP:TV only precludes making our own predictions about the premiere date of a forthcoming series that hasn't been officially upfronted yet, in the sense that we can't assume that a show will premiere in 2017 just because we know it's in production but hasn't premiered yet. But once reliable sources say it's premiering in 2017, WP:TV has no rule against categorizing it as such. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2016 (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.

Deaths in 1927 by month[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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No other deaths by month structure exists and I think this would need a project-wide consensus to do this. I'm pretty sure similar categories have been deleted like this in the past. I've checked the articles and they're already in the Category:1927 deaths, so there's no need to upmerge. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and quickly – seeSpecial:Contributions/Jonrgrover3) – what Lugnuts said. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:56, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom. Births and deaths should just be 'by year'. Oculi (talk) 09:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per nom. Overcategorization. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I would have said merge back if not assured that they were all in the 1927 category. We really do not need to split below year. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The category 1927 deaths has too many pages to be useful. It needs to be divided up somehow in order to be useful. The easiest way to divide it up is by month. Other schemes could be useful, for example 1927 deaths by various causes, or 1927 deaths by various professions etc. Jonrgrover3 (talk) 23:31, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If diffusion is needed it shouldn't be done the easiest way, but rather by something that is relevant to the topic. Diffusion by cause of death may be useful indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any "year deaths" category could always have the same claim made about it. 1927 isn't uniquely overstuffed — in point of fact, it's actually on the small end compared to many of the others, since more recent categories are quite often two or three times larger than 1927 is. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course all we discuss here applies to many other year categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Subcategorizing years of death by individual month isn't particularly helpful or WP:DEFINING. It's a valid way to break up the "list of deaths" article into readable sublists, but it's not a useful aid to navigation at the category level. Bearcat (talk) 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not defining to the Individual. Let us look at why year of death is. The most basic obituary for Boyd K. Packer would read "Boyd K. Packer (1924-2015) was the President of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 2008 until his death. He had previously served as acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve from 1995 until 2008." Year of birth and death will always be listed if known, they are basic defining facts. Month of death is not. By breaking down to month of death we would miss a lot whose exact month is unknown, and thus not neccesarily group together. The highest number of articles in any given year for death is 7,557 in 2014 (the highest number of births is 15,124 in 1988, which shows how presentist Wikipedia is). That would give us if fully dispersed 630 articles per month on average. Size is not the only issue. I think we are willing to have birth year, death year, and the general living people categories that are truly large (the last has over 788,000 entries). I don't think there is any good reason to divide these particular categories in a more precise way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 14 September 2016 (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:Judicial system of Bhutan[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:
Nominator's rationale: The main article for this category is Judiciary of Bhutan and the parent category is Category:Judiciaries by country. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The judiciary consists of the judges, not of the courts over which they preside. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Pk. The main article needs renaming. Johnbod (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Judiciary and Judicial system are synonyms. The main article Wikipedia article is judiciary. Almost all countries categories are judiciaries only a handful are judicial systems. GcSwRhIc (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per GcSwRhIc. Based on the naming of our articles, judiciary does refer to the system of courts. Rename that article first if you'd like to change the entire categorization system, but I doubt there will be consensus for that. Until then, let's keep things uniform. ~ Rob13Talk 16:37, 20 September 2016 (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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_9&oldid=1075704862"