Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 15 October 17 >

October 16[edit]

Category:The King of Queens 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: keep. The argument to delete this category citing WP:SMALLCAT is contradicted by SMALLCAT itself, as it allows exceptions for those "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" such as this. ℯxplicit 05:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT clearly applies here. The King of Queens ended in 2007 and there has been no interest in creating episode articles in the ensuing 11 years. Only 2 articles, one of which is the main episode list, exist and there will almost certainly never be any more. Until 2 days ago, even Category:The King of Queens didn't exist as there are only 6 articles in total for the entire series. However, this category was only just created, along with Category:The King of Queens characters. Moving 3 articles into Category:The King of Queens characters and 2 into this category leaves only 1 article in Category:The King of Queens. To make things more ridiculous, the category creator has not bothered to link what should be two subcats to Category:The King of Queens making it harder to identify related articles and WP:SMALLCAT now applies to all three cats. That said, the existence of Category:The King of Queens may be justifiable if all 6 articles are contained in that category, but there is no reason why this or Category:The King of Queens characters should exist. AussieLegend (✉) 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To me as creator of the category, it would seem to make more sense for episodes of a American series to be categorized under Category:American television episodes by series to be more beneficial to readers rather than place anything related to the show under a generic eponymously-named and harder-to-find category. As precedent, I saw that there were similar categories such as Category:Happy Days episodes and Category:3rd Rock from the Sun episodes, so this made sense to create based on category navigational purposes for such a scheme, which is noted as an exception to WP:SMALLCAT. If Category:The King of Queens should serve as the parent, that's fine then. (Since I just created these, linking the subcats was going to be the next step before the nominator started reverting my edits.) StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:28, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The categories that you refer to are too small as well. At one stage people were creating episode articles for virtually every TV episode that aired. Many of these have been redirected by a lot have been deleted and it's quite possible that the categories once contained more articles. This is not the case with this series.
Since I just created these, linking the subcats was going to be the next step before the nominator started reverting my edits. - I do find this somewhat disingenuous and trying to shift the blame for what happened onto me. The categories were created and populated at least 7 minutes before I started reverting. During that time you made edits to 4 unrelated articles with no attempt to do any linking to Category:The King of Queens, which should have been done when the categories were created. You were somehow able to link to other categories during creation, just not the most important one. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is permitted is really irrelevant. You don't need an entire category for a single episode article. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of single article categories all explicitly allowed under WP:SMALLCAT: "... unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Category:American television episodes is a container category: there are no articles at the top level, it is diffused by series. Oculi (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, because there are only 6 articles for 3 categories, using the process that Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars advocates, it makes it more difficult to navigate between the 6 articles than it is if they were in a single category. There really is no practical need to have 3 categories when one will do. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's much easier to find similarly related items if they are under a similar category scheme by topic (say characters or episodes) than to guess what may exist under a single top-level eponymous category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a lot of character or episode articles for the series that claim may have some credibility but here we are talking about 3 characters and a single episode article for the entire series. That's barely enough to justify one category. I don't really see the claim as being supportable at all when it comes to searching for episodes. Why would anyone be searching for "related" episodes? The only episodes that are related to the single episode that we have are other King of Queens episodes and there are none. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – per SMALLCAT and better off as a list, obviously. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:52, 16 October 2018 (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 King of Queens characters[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. The argument to delete this category citing WP:SMALLCAT is contradicted by SMALLCAT itself, as it allows exceptions for those "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" such as this. ℯxplicit 05:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT clearly applies here. The King of Queens ended in 2007 and there has been no interest in creating character articles in the ensuing 11 years. Only 3 character articles exist and there will almost certainly never be any more. Until 2 days ago, even Category:The King of Queens didn't exist as there are only 6 articles in total for the entire series. However, this category was only just created, along with Category:The King of Queens episodes. Moving 2 articles into Category:The King of Queens episodes and 3 into this category leaves only 1 article in Category:The King of Queens. To make things more ridiculous, the category creator has not bothered to link what should be two subcats to Category:The King of Queens making it harder to identify related articles and WP:SMALLCAT now applies to all three cats. That said, the existence of Category:The King of Queens may be justifiable if all 6 articles are contained in that category, but there is no reason why this or Category:The King of Queens episodes should exist. AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The categories that you refer to are too small as well. At one stage people were creating character articles for most characters in TV series. Many of these have since been deleted and it's quite possible that the categories once contained more articles. This is not the case with this series. As for searching for the characters, most readers first stop would likely be the main series article where they can find links to the character article they're looking for. Going to Category:Sitcom characters by series would be a long way of doing things. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization is a beautiful thing. I can read an article about Cosmo Kramer and from there decide to go to Category:Seinfeld characters and then to its parent Category:Sitcom characters by series. Now, I can find articles on other oddball characters I may be interested in reading about such as Barney Fife or Charlie Kelly (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand you could go to Cosmo Kramer and immediately see all of the Seinfeld characters listed in the navbox at the bottom of the page without any need for categorisation. You can also see links to 27 other related articles without the need to go category hopping. The King of Queens navbox serves the same purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox is how I get to other articles related to Seinfeld, not how I get from Kramer to Barney Fife. What's wrong with category hopping? I learn so much by doing that. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you need to go to Barney Fife from Cosmo Kramer? They're not in the same series, they're just two random characters. Your categorisation is really excessive for this series. Any cats that you need to facilitate random searchescan easily be added to Category:The King of Queens. That's one of the reasons we have WP:SMALLCAT. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am interested in reading articles about other characters in other sitcoms, which I can easily do from Category:Sitcom characters by series. I might do the same thing with Category:Indie rock musical groups from California: one minute I could be reading about a group I like such as Silversun Pickups then go on to read about a group I never heard of like The Mowgli's, simply by exploring the category. But why would I do that, I guess you would ask, since they're just two random groups. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why an extra category is needed and we shouldn't be creating content to suit the preferences of a single editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:40, 17 October 2018 (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:Railway stations served by Heathrow Connect[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 pending centralised discussion. Timrollpickering 19:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, defunct operator with all services now operated by Crossrail and covered by that operator's equivalent category. Metro140 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category was only empty because the originator of this CFD @Metro140: emptied the category. A clear violation of WP:CFD which says not to empty a category before nominating it for deletion. I have restored the entries....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:49, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending centralised discussion. I think that it would be wisest to have a centralised discussion (probably at WT:UKRAIL) about categorisation by TOC in general (current, future, sub-brands, TOC or franchise, etc) rather than the current approach of CfDing individual categories from within the tree in isolation. Thryduulf (talk) 12:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Foul per WilliamJE (talk · contribs). It is abuse of process to empty a category and then take it to CFD on the grounds that it is empty. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As it stands, categories only exist for active UK train operators Category:Railway_stations_in_the_United_Kingdom_by_train_operating_company and not former post privatisation operators, hence we don't have Railway stations served by Thames Trains, Railway stations served by First Great Western Link etc. That may change based on the discussion above, but until this is resolved, to be consistent we should only have categories for active operators, rather than selected former operators. In a previous discussion, it was suggested that having categories for former TOCs fell foul of WP:Overcategorization. Heathrow Connect ceased in May 2018 becoming part of the Crossrail network, hence I thought correct to remove the category from the station articles that it served, and with the category empty and no prospect of being populated, nominate it for deletion. Metro140 (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2018 (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:Neurological disease deaths in New York (state)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. Timrollpickering 19:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Neurological disease deaths in the United States is not otherwise broken up by state. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 16 October 2018 (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:London protocols[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 13:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of unrelated subjects with a shared name. These are various unrelated treaties that happen to be called the "London Protocol". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 16 October 2018 (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:International Society for Krishna Consciousness bands[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: No consensus. Timrollpickering 13:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization and inaccurate. E.g. Cro-Mags don't really perform Hindu music. Upmerge as appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Currently 4 articles have this category. 3 either have citations or discuss ISKCON influence. The Cro-Mag article might not fit in this category. Hare Krishna topics do not belong mixed with general Hindu topics as people interested in Hinduism generally do not want Hare Krishna topics and vice versa. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:33, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Performers of Hindu music per WP:SMALLCAT, after removal of Cro-Mag only 3 articles left. While some people may not like it, Hare Krishna is regarded to be a Hinduist movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cro-Mags is correctly categorized. 4 articles in a category is not that small. It is possible that there are more notable bands but we don't have articles about them. Orientls (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2018 (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:Cultural depictions of people[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: containerize, as proposed. I will leave the implementation of this to the participants in the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category which needs a purge due to extreme misuse. While it's valid in principle as a container for the subcategories that it contains, and the usage note states that "This category is for categories and lists of cultural and other works (including film, TV and literature) that feature depictions of people", the problem here is that it's often directly applied to random individual films and television series and characters — but virtually every single film or television series or play or novel that exists at all, and every single character within any of them, is by definition a "cultural depiction of people", making this an WP:INDISCRIMINATE category. (For example, The Nanny and Everybody Loves Raymond and Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, which have been filed here, are not somehow more defined by being "cultural depictions of people" than, say, The Big Bang Theory or Kim's Convenience or The West Wing, which have not.) And further to that, I've also already caught at least one example of a real person being filed here, on the trivial basis that somebody once played him in a film — but since a lot of notable people have been portrayed on film, filing real people here on that basis is also a recipe for extreme indiscriminacy. This is not a good basis for a content category, because it doesn't represent a point of distinction between the things that have been filed here and similar things that haven't — it's a valid parent for the subcategories, but it should not contain a random and arbitrary selection of individual works or characters. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An awful lot of the problems would be solved by renaming to Category:Cultural depictions of real individual people. I don't see a problem with say Rubens (film) being in a subcat, but clearly dramas about fictional characters don't belong, nor social/anthropological documentaries etc etc. Plus a clearer category note, & repeating for the subcats. Is this old discussion partly to blame? The current category note is certainly part of the problem:
This category is for categories and lists of cultural and other works (including film, TV and literature) that feature depictions of people.
For works which are essentially based on real people, see Category:Works based on real people.
  • This used to be much better, before the discussion. Johnbod (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support containerization per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support containerization. Well explained by nom. Orientls (talk) 14:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If change is needed, manually merge, moving member pages into existing sub-categories where appropriate, rather than just removing them from the nominated category. For member pages that remain after that, consider whether additional sub-cats could be useful. – Fayenatic London 15:33, 21 October 2018 (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:Satire anime and manga[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: No consensus. Timrollpickering 13:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three members (WP:SMALLCAT) and whose inclusion in this category are no supported by reliable sources per WP:CATVER. —Farix (t | c) 22:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - New category often implies that it will eventually be populated which makes this nomination a little bit premature. WP:CATVER doesn't apply here because the entries are sourced properly. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 18:51, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now. A very new category. Wait few months and if it remains just as small then consider a renomination. Orientls (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2018 (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:Non-Gregorian observances by Gregorian 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: manually disperse the contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: If the observance isn't on the Gregorian calendar, it doesn't belong to a Gregorian month. 37.26.146.197 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nominator that these are obscure categories. However Category:Observances on non-Gregorian calendars is undesirable as a merge target, since this is largely a container category. I would not mind merging them to Category:January observances though, and so on for the other 11 months. For example Agonalia was celebrated on a day equivalent to January 9, so why not categorize it there? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (probably support) -- This whole tree seems like a load of nonsense to me. We have a mixture of different feasts whose date is determined by lunar and other calendars. Chinese and Tibetan New Year will depend on a lunar calendar. American Mother's Day is always in May, so why is it in this tree at all? The Anglican Mothering Sunday usually falls in March, but its date is determined by that of Easter. The merge target is probably going to be rather large, so that it may be useful to split it based on the specific calendar or event from which the date is determined, e.g. Category:Observances whose date is related to Easter. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • leaning delete What I see is that this is a way to try to assign the various holidays to approximate time of years, e.g. Category:Shavuot sits in both May and June. I'm not terribly convinced this is a good way to do it. Mangoe (talk) 02:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Some of the categories were not tagged for discussion, but they are now. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds like a better compromise. Such parent category is necessary at this stage. Orientls (talk) 07:52, 22 October 2018 (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/2018_October_16&oldid=871689034"