Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 18 March 20 >

March 19[edit]

Category:DOI templates[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 15:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, nothing that can't be handled by the parent Category:Catalog lookup templates. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Some IP recently populated this with a bunch of unrelated templates that have absolutely nothing to do with catalog lookup links, like {{JCW-DOI-rank}} and {{R from DOI prefix}}. It should still be deleted as a pointless category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If you're looking for a lookup template that handles DOIs, this is useful because it segregates DOI templates instead of putting them in a group of 90+ templates. And if you're looking for some other lookup template, it's marginally useful because it excludes the DOI templates from the 80+ templates that you have to look through. Plus, the IP's work demonstrates that DOI templates aren't necessarily for catalogue lookup purposes. Nyttend (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Headbomb: presumably the nomination intends to merge to Category:Catalog lookup templates rather than to delete, doesn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those that need to be in Category:Catalog lookup templates are already in it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:53, 29 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.

Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni[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 to Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni to Category:Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union alumni, and split to Category:Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia alumni. – Fayenatic London 14:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation, and not applicable to any graduate of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Russia within the last 30 years or so, since when the General Staff Academy has been a Russian institution. Alternatively, create a cat scheme of Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni for graduates of the 1936-1991 Soviet period, and Category:General Staff Academy (Russia) alumni (or Category:General Staff Academy (Russian Federation) alumni) for graduates since 1991, and possibly Category:General Staff Academy (Imperial Russia) alumni for graduates of the General Staff Academy (Imperial Russia) between 1832-1917. Spokoyni (talk) 20:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as nom, as I find the proposed title slightly better. Keeping a redirect is not worthy. Place Clichy (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spokoyni: is there enough evidence that the common name of this institute is "General Staff Academy" rather than the full name? If there is, the article title should be changed as well. We are mostly trying to keep article names and category names consistent with each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be an instance where trying to keep article names and category names identical would be misleading. Any category name that includes 'Russia' in some form is ahistorical for all graduates from its formation in 1936, up until it changed from a Soviet institution to purely a Russian one in 1991, as much as 'Soviet' is for all graduates after 1991. 'Russia' should never be a shorthand for 'Soviet'. Using 'Russia' as some form of category disambiguation only works if there is a distinction between the Soviet and Russian period, hence the suggestion of "Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni for graduates of the 1936-1991 Soviet period, and Category:General Staff Academy (Russia) alumni for graduates since 1991". This follows the precedent of Category:Turkish Military Academy alumni and Category:Ottoman Military Academy alumni with the article on the academy at the current name of Turkish Military Academy. Alternatively use a category name that does not force a historical period on articles placed in it, like Category:General Staff Academy alumni. Finding a common name to try and move the article to is fraught with difficulty when considering the many different ways English speakers can translate and shorten clunky Russian proper names like Военная академия Генерального штаба Вооружённых сил Российской Федерации, let alone its full name which translates to "Federal State Treasury Military Educational Institution of Higher Education Military Order of Lenin, Red Banner, Orders of Suvorov and Kutuzov Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation". This academic article for instance uses five different variations in just its title and opening paragraph. (Military Academy of the General Staff, Russian General Staff Military Academy, Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Military Academy, Academy of the General Staff). Spokoyni (talk) 07:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Spokoyni: Would having a subcategory called Category:Alumni of the Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Soviet Union for the earlier graduates accomplish the goal of not conflating Russian and Soviet? I'm remain concerned we're in the middle of an RM discussion in a CFD nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Yes, that would be fine. (Though as above it should be Category:Military Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Soviet Union alumni - unless you wish to change the formatting shown at Category:Alumni by university or college in Russia). I agree trying to discuss changes to the title of the article here is a complicated business that belongs in a RM. Essentially then I suggest:
Comment on Nominator's Revised Proposal That works for me (and no objection to speedy renaming the category to your original proposal if the main article is moved with an RM). Pinging the other commenters here to try to reach consensus. @Peterkingiron, Laurel Lodged, and Marcocapelle: RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes that sounds very reasonable. Btw previously I thought that the institute changed their name in 1991 from the shorter to the longer version so now I understand the situation better. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer if the word order had the words "alumni of" first. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:31, 31 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.

Category:North Warwickshire District[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. – Fayenatic London 11:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:UKDISTRICTS North Warwickshire has borough status and thus should be disambiguated with "Borough of" as a prefix. It already defaultsorted this way and I must have overlooked this at the previous CFD. This is consistent with Category:Borough of North East Lincolnshire/Category:People from the Borough of North East Lincolnshire for example. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, on the basis we tend towards using the COMMONNAME rather than the pedantically correct full name. Renaming the categories will make them more difficult to find. Sionk (talk) 19:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    But standard naming is to use "Borough of" not "District" with boroughs which the others use. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I very much doubt if the common name is 'North Warwickshire District': google gives 60 hits, as opposed to 44000 for "Borough of North Warwickshire". (I am supposing that the 2nd target should be Category:People from the Borough of North Warwickshire.) Oculi (talk) 23:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Oculi fixed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 06:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Let's comply with naming conventions. My first thought was "People from North Warwickshire", but I guess this is a good example of why we need category names to be more precise. Maybe Englishmen would know better, but foreigners like me might see it as a category for people from northern Warwickshire and end up putting people into it that don't belong (analogous to "People from North East, Pennsylvania" versus "People from Northeastern Pennsylvania"), so this ought to have a longer and less ambiguous name. Nyttend (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    North Warwickshire wouldn't usually be mentioned, only Warwickshire or a place in Warwickshire. It's possible that people could look at a map to find where the place mentioned in an article is (if it doesn't have its own article or category), but unlikely. Category:People from West Virginia is similar. Peter James (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion, since the main article appears to be simply North Warwickshire the category name could be alike but with a disambiguator, e.g. Category:North Warwickshire (district/borough). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds much more sensible. Sionk (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No disambiguation is needed - it's similar to Category:North Yorkshire, Category:North Berwick, Category:North Macedonia and many more (even names that are more likely to be misunderstood - where there is ambiguity with post towns such as Manchester and postal counties such as South Yorkshire - are not disambiguated). Other discussions had almost no participation - If I had noticed them, I would have opposed most, which would have made it no consensus just as it was for North Somerset. Peter James (talk) 18:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those names are (like WV) well known units that people are unlikely to confuse, almost nobody would know what district a settlement is in (unless perhaps they live there and I hadn't heard of the district I live in until 2008 when I looked at a map) to most people "North Warwickshire" would probbaly mean the northern part of the county not a specific unit. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why categories have pages where descriptions can be added. The "northern part of the county" wouldn't have a category unless it could be defined clearly. North Berwick isn't particularly well known, and people could guess it was part of Berwick, and there are places in North Yorkshire that I would have guessed were in South Yorkshire - some parts are closer to Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire than they are to York. Peter James (talk) 19:04, 4 April 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:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and sports[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: already (prematurely) merged (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This "and sports" category duplicates the functionality of the "impact" category with no greater utility. There is no other content other than that found in the "impact" category and one parent category that could be added to the "impact" category ("category: Health and sport") -- 67.70.32.186 (talk) 17:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- We only need one parent and the target has a better constructed name to show what it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - per nom. Oculi (talk) 18:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - no need for two categories here. Forbes72 | Talk 18:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there's no clear difference, the categories don't clearly indicate it anyway. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:27, 20 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.

Category:Events cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic[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. – Fayenatic London 12:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many many events have been cancelled by the pandemic. But there are a larger number of events in a supercat that have either been cancelled, postponed or have found alternate venues but otherwise still affected by the pandemic, so it would seem to be better to catalog all such events this way, and use the cat "Cancelled events" as the intersection for those outright cancelled, or alternatively a separate subcat for cancelled events. Masem (t) 16:52, 19 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.

Category:After Dark (British TV series) hosts[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates the prohibition on categorising performers by series or performance venue. We don't even do this for Category:Wheel of Fortune (franchise). Deletion or upmerging to Category:After Dark (TV programme) is fine with me. Graham87 15:07, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am the editor who created these categories, after reading about the rules and taking advice from more experienced editors about how to do this. I apologise if I got things wrong. However may I add a little:--
a/ As I have said elsewhere, I have been editing for over ten years but only sporadically and not with great expertise, and none at all in the creation of categories. However nothing I have done has ever resulted in a nomination for deletion, so I am also new to this process (eg I see the nomination gets a line in bold type, don't know what I am supposed to do by way of response).
b/ I only created this category on the encouragement of people who have been in touch (film and television archive researchers) who said that such a category page would be of use to them. I admit that I thought this was uncontroversial, again apologies.
c/ The editor proposing the deletion - User:Graham87 - has written on my Talk page: When creating categories (or anything on Wikipedia), it's a good idea to model their structure on existing well-established pages. This is exactly what I did.
d/ As a guide to which pages to use I looked at other British tv categories (using Category:Wikipedia categories named after British television programmes) and also programmes which struck me as perhaps helpful guides, such as QI / Category:QI, which for some reason does not appear in Category:Wikipedia categories named after British television programmes.
e/ A perhaps useful example is Category:Big Brother (British TV series) contestants, which seems a more-or-less exact parallel (this page has been stable for a number of years). There is only one significant difference between this category and the one I created: most if not all of the Big Brother "contestants" differ from the After Dark "participants" in that they were relatively unknown before appearing on the programme, which is not in general the case with the usually already notable After Dark guests. That does not seem a significant or relevant distinction to me, again perhaps I am wrong.
f/ The editor proposing the deletion goes on to write: For what it's worth, I'd never heard of After Dark until an hour ago. The point is surely primarily one of simple fact: the leading UK trade paper wrote in 2010 that "After Dark defined the first 10 years of Channel 4, just as Big Brother did for the second", just one example of many plaudits this significant series has received over the last decades. Might I suggest that although the editor's ignorance of the programme may fuel his "scepticism" (the word he uses), that is simply a reflection of what one person knows or does not know and is not really relevant to the issue of categories.
g/ Finally I would be grateful for guidance as to how to oppose the proposed deletion - or alternatively, how best to deal with all the other British tv categories which do exactly the same job in the same way.

AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as offending WP:OC#PERF. Big Brother contestants seem to have been allowed, because many of the are NN except for this. The one example I checked did not even mention the series in the article. In this case the participants (guests) are frequently well known politicians or activists, who are notable for other reasons than appearing in a TV series over 15 years ago. There is already a very long article on the series, which lists many of the hosts. I would not abject to a LIST article of the 238 participants, but having categories leads to the complaint of category clutter, the basis for the normal prohibition on performance by performer categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed. A sorta similar series whose category structure is unproblematic is Category:Desert Island Discs. Graham87 02:11, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And Parkinson doesn't have a category structure and doesn't seem to need one. Pinging Tigraan, who responded in the help desk thread that led to the creation of this category. Graham87 02:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the ping, but I do not know enough about categorization to offer an informed opinion. As I wrote on the Help Desk: I am not sure, however, of the naming conventions for categories, what the appropriate parent cat(s) would be, or whether such a category would be considered useful by the general community. TigraanClick here to contact me 09:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies: I do not know what "many of the are NN except for this" means. NN? AnOpenMedium (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performance category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:21, 20 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.

Category:After Dark (British TV series) participants[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. I checked all the members with surnames starting with A, and they are already listed (albeit by date rather than name) at List of After Dark editions. – Fayenatic London 09:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost definitely not a defining characteristic of the people involved, and definitely violates the prohibition on categorising performers by series or performance venue. It's misnamed, anyway; by convention, it would be at Category:After Dark (TV programme) participants, per the regular convention. Graham87 14:44, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to the proposed deletion - immediately above - of Category:After Dark (British TV series) hosts. Sorry for any confusion created by my replying there. AnOpenMedium (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Perhaps Listify; certainly delete WP:OC#PERF. For the reasons, see the related CFD on the hosts category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performance category, and not defining. A few of the bios I looked at not only didn't mention it in the lead, but didn't mention it at all. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I have said before in this discussion, I am new to categories so please forgive my puzzlement. Plenty of Wikipedia biographical articles include categories about the sexuality of the subject. Yet this rarely makes the lead and may not even appear (in any direct way) in the body of the article. For example some of the articles in Category:LGBT people from England.
How is this categorisation (which seems well established and so presumably meets the approval of category specialists) different? Is it that sexuality is fixed - or at least long term - whereas a tv appearance, however extended, is restricted to a one-off event?
AnOpenMedium (talk) 18:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia categorises by what is "defining" for the subject. Please see WP:DEFINING. – Fayenatic London 14:33, 27 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.

Category:Belgian comics titles[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. – Fayenatic London 12:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The distinction between these two seems to be minimal, if one exists. No opinion on whether the merge should be in this direction or reversed. If the distinction is that "comic strips" should only be used for newspaper comics (which may be the more American meaning of the word, but not how most Europeans probably understand it), then this needs to be made clear and many comics removed from the "strip" category. Otherwise, my preference is to keep the "comic strips" article for all series, and merge to "comics titles" one to it, as "comic strips" is the more "natural", commonly used name for these IMO. Fram (talk) 08:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? I don't see the relevance? Yes, the more cats you add, the more complicated this becomes, but it doesn't change the fundamental issue(s): there are no clear inclusion criteria for either category, "comics titles" is not a standard term, and what you (or precedent) seems to imply is that "comics titles" should be restricted to what is in fact already in the cat for Belgian comics magazines. Purely looking at the Belgian situation, we have three categories, but only two types of articles to populate them with? Right? So one of the three needs to go. Fram (talk) 11:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, "Belgian comics" is the parent cat, combining series, magazines, artists, museums, ... so that one is not a problem I think. Fram (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would abandon the entire Comic strips category altogether in favour of Category:Comics titles. Because in the English-language world there is a clear distinction between comic strips (everything that appears in a newspaper) and comics (superhero comics), which doesn't exist in most other comics cultures, where both are all just comics. There are constant debates which comics could be considered comic strips and which comics, with usually graphic novels being thrown in the comics category. I think it would be better to use Category: Comics titles for all these specific comics titles. - User:Kjell Knudde, 10:30, 21 March 2020 (CET).
  • Oppose Clearly not every title is a comic strip (a strip of comic panels). Unless you consider all comics that are not single-panel comics to be "comic strips", but there are still single-panel comics or comic books with single panels a page as a compilation of single panels. Some of them are graphic novels or novel series comic books, which many would not classify as just a comic strip. Thus is it wrong to merge into the comic strip category. -- 67.70.32.186 (talk) 00:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a separate category for graphic novels, there is no request to merge these in either category here. "Comic strips" is the standard term and straight translations for all Belgian comics though, these are "stripverhalen" ("strip stories") in Dutch, and "bandes dessinées" ("drawn strips") in French, even though cerainly in French most appeared in magazines with multiple pages per week, not in newspapers. In Flanders, these appeared in newspapers in half pages per day, not in actual "strips" either. In either case, we now have nearly duplicate categories, so a solution in some direction is needed. Fram (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Belgian comics are nothing like comic strips. I wonder of "comic strips" may be a bad translation of Bandes dessinées in this case. I also agree that titles is weird here, but the proposed target is not an improvement. I'm all in favour of using "comics" as the umbrella term for both comic strips and bande dessinée. Place Clichy (talk) 11:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree to the latter as well, the distinction is blurry as many succesful comics started as a comic strip in a newspaper and later became published as books of their own. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 27 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.

Category:Shetty's Police Universe[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 as an unopposed WP:C2D nomination (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match the parent article. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:20, 19 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.

Category:Sesame Street Grouches[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seemingly useless category for only one article. dibbydib Ping me! 💬/✏ 02:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete small cat; I note that grouch is redlink (thankfully) lest we start classifying people and characters in other media as "grouches". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. How has this survived for 7 years? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:22, 23 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.

Category:Number-one albums[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consensus over multiple CfDs has determined that lists are the best way to indicate albums that went to number one, which is satisfied by the scheme Category:Lists of number-one albums and Category:Lists of number-one albums in the United Kingdom for the UK lists specifically. Overcategorization and non-defining characteristics are also issues here. Prior discussions on such categorization have taken place 15 Jul 2006, 12 May 2009, 7 Mar 2010, 30 Dec 2010, setting the precedent. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These were created the same way as the singles number one categories - could these categories be added to articles of albums which were number one on these charts? Because articles of number one singles are categorised in the same way - eg. Category:UK Singles Chart number-one singles, Category:UK Dance Singles Chart number-one singles etc. contain articles of singles which were number one on those charts. Can the same be done for number one albums? ~Hiddenstranger (talk) 02:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all – There are over 100 number one singles categories of many countries at Category:Number-one singles including subcats (for example many Billboard number one categories at Category:Number-one singles in the United States). Number one songs and albums are important massive achievements and these number one categories were created way back in the early days of Wikipedia. Very useful and informative; I wouldn't call this overcategorization. If we have had number one categories for singles for many years, why not albums. Hiddenstranger (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re "informative": the place for people (i.e. readers) to go for information is the text of articles (including lists) where it can be referenced (WP:V). Re "why not": see WP:OSE. DexDor (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the singles cats should all be deleted as well. American Pie (song) gives an example of the category clutter which results from these unnecessary categories. Oculi (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom/Oculi - ensuring that any lists are still categorized correctly. DexDor (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Most of these are merely providing an unnecessary category level for a single subcat: "Lists of …". The main exception is Category:United Kingdom number-one albums by chart. but it is probably duplicating something similar. The main reason why the records themselves are not allowed in such categories is that they create category-clutter. The effect is similar to WP:OC#PERF. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed and seems that it's time for these to go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 20 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_19&oldid=955621445"