Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 21 January 23 >

January 22[edit]

Category:Wikipedians interested in the Oakland Raiders[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: rename. MER-C 17:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should be moved to Category:Wikipedians interested in the Las Vegas Raiders because the new name was officialy announced today. SportsFan007 (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support nom's rationale, which is entirely reasonable. (Sidebar comment: I'm just surprised nom is so on the ball with renaming a Wikipedian user category in tandem with the announcement.) Doug Mehus T·C 02:51, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Blechhammer prisoners of World War II[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. MER-C 18:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't make sense because there were several separate forced-labor operations near Blechhammer, but they differed wildly from one another (POW camps, a subcamp of Auschwitz, Polish forced laborers, etc.). buidhe 22:34, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support If the facts are reliable true that Buidhe delivered the deletion is indeed necessary. Just N. (talk) 16:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Architects by continent of work[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. – Fayenatic London 23:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article populates these 3 categories. Architects often work in lots of countries. Not defining. The rest of Category:People by occupation and continent relates to the nationality of the people, not where they work. Rathfelder (talk) 16:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Architects working in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Architects working in Tanzania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Support in principle per nom, but executed slightly differently: rename Category:Architects working in Tanzania to Category:Tanzanian architects; delete the other two categories indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Peter Bransgrove was British, not Tanzanian. It was Tanganyika when he was there. Oculi (talk) 18:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The area of activity of an architect could be defining, but a continent-wide category is overly broad. Dimadick (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete where a person works may be defining (I think Van Gogh's period in France was), but combining [profession]+[location of work] for every possible combination makes a whole parallel tree to the people from and the expats in trees and ultimately becomes another category burden for the many professions that cross international borders. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many architects work across the globe. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • it is quite true that the area of activity of an architect could be defining, and that could be the basis of a system of categorisation, but it isnt what we have now. I dont think we do that with any other profession and it would clearly have its own problems. I've made a category Category:Architecture of Tanzania which I think is the best we can do. Rathfelder (talk) 16:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle -- Peter Bransgrove was a British architect who worked in colonial Tanganyika. Category:Architects working in Tanzania would fit (despite the anachronism), applying the principle established long ago for alumni categories that the alumni of a renamed or merged college are deemed to have attended the successor. Architecture categories should be for buildings, not people, so that I do not like Rathfelder's proposal, though his new category might be a useful parent. Category:Colonial architects in Africa might be another parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Marvel Comics planets[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. ƏXPLICIT 00:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles, and future expansion seems pretty unlikely. The redirects belong in a redirect category. TTN (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films based on 2000 AD (comics)[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. – Fayenatic London 23:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, which isn't really even about the 2000 AD franchise, and one subcategory, which is already in CFM discussion. Way too little to deserve a separate category. Delete. JIP | Talk 10:43, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle but I guess the category should be upmerged to the parent categories, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am seeing a conflicting argument here. You say that there is Only one article [...] and one subcategory, but you CfD the category to be merged into Category:Judge Dredd, which isn't a film-based category. That means that both Dredd and Judge Dredd (film) would have to be re-categorized as Category:Films based on 2000 AD (comics). That gives us 3 for this category, making it a helpful category to find films based on specific comic book works. --Gonnym (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Now at three articles, which is small but enough for a category. There is also a real prospect of expansion, with a Rogue Trooper film having a script and director [2], and Rebellion (owners of 2000 AD) setting up a studio [3]. the wub "?!" 00:09, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

American television series by network[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: rename. MER-C 17:17, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
American television series by network (discussion)[edit]

Renaming 129 subcategories of Category:American television series by network to a common naming scheme, ending with "original programming". All tagged by DannyS712 bot II per request by @Gonnym. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The current naming of categories in Category:American television series by network (and in other related categories) is very inconsistent, using 13 different styles (that I've noticed; see below). I've chosen to propose the usage be "original programming" for a few reasons:

  1. Usage of "original" makes the category clear what type of members it should have as per MOS:TVCATS: TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network, meaning that all members of the categories should be only original programming and not re-runs, syndication, etc.
  2. Using "programming" solves the UK/US conflict of "program" vs "programmes" and creates a WP:CONSISTENT style, which makes it easier for both editors and readers to find.
  3. This is the style used consistently by Category:Original programming by streaming service subcategories.
  4. Using "programming" also solves another issue of clarity as categories that use "series" also have "TV programs" added to them.
Styles used

Thanks for the help DannyS712! --Gonnym (talk) 06:52, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Category:Carlton Television, Category:Channel 4 comedy. Fuddle (talk) 00:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some of the American ones weren't tagged as they were sub-categories of other network ones and not in the main category. If this passes I'll take care of the missing ones and the other languages. --Gonnym (talk) 14:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 05:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the number of categories involved, it would be prudent to get explicit support for this. MER-C 08:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't disagree, but giving the inconsistency with the categories that has been there for years, this may just be one of those categories that doesn't interest editors. No point in indefinitely relisting it when WP:SILENCE exists. --Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the rename redefines the scope of these categories in line with WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's a lot of work, but it's only going to get worse. Fuddle (talk) 00:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the rename redefines the scope of these categories in line with WP:DEFINING. Just N. (talk) 16:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I do applaud the effort, it should be noted that "programming is not what is in these categories. "Programming" (verb) is what a network executive does when determining what to show and when to show it. They create a "structure" (schedule). "Programming" (noun) is that structure. Not the shows themselves. We shouldn't shoehorn things into using an inappropriate word out of Wikipedia convenience. (Looks at WP:IAR.) In my past experience with these discussions, "show(s)" was the most neutral identifier, that also avoided the US/UK issues, like how "series" is defined etc. Needless to say, this topic has been discussed and re-discussed for years. That said, I would welcome hearing/discussing other possible options. - jc37 19:14, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your description is one possible use of "programming" but isn't the only one as can be seen by these examples [4], [5], [6] and [7]. I also disagree that "show" is the most neutral identifier. It's also not a word used in any of the TV-related guidelines (including WP:NCTV), so not used in any TV article or disambiguation. If there was a discussion about this usage, it probably was a very local consensus agreement which basically ignored actual usages in article-space. I'll also add that these categories usually also have original films, either inside the category or as a sub-category. A film is definitely not a "show", while it is part of an "original programming". I'm also not a fan of hinting of abusing WP:IAR when the consensus is not in your favor. While you might not agree with something, that does not make it wrong. However, for the sake of finding a solution, while looking for sources that used "original programming" I noticed that a lot of them used "original content". I'm ok with that. --Gonnym (talk) 21:51, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, so first, all 4 of your examples actually illustrate what I said. Each talk about a network's or channel's or service's programming. Second, I suggest you go back and look up the actual discussions going back years rather than just vague-waving, or suggesting that many WP:CFD discussions over time are merely a "local consensus". (And if that were true, wouldn't that be true of this discussion as well?) Third, a "show" does indeed include a film - wikt:show#Noun. and while we're referencing words - wikt:programming#Noun. Wikipedia does not create, we report. Hence my comment about IAR. - Existing policy is made to reflect what we can reference. Not what we might like or what is convenient to us. And of course WP:CCC. So if existing policy needs changing, we can do that. All that aside, this should be civil discourse, so please WP:AGF. If you re-read my comments above, I said "we" on Wikipedia, and was talking about best practices "we" should try to follow. What we do here has little to do with you or I, it is about making Wikipedia better. And with that in mind I of course welcome further discussion. And to address the usage of "content", that would appear to be a bit too broad a term, for similar reasons concerning "product" (or production). - jc37 02:14, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_22&oldid=946719567"