Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 3 October 5 >

October 4[edit]

Category:Animal monuments in Australia[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 18:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as in similar subcats of parent Category:Animal sculptures by country. fgnievinski (talk) 23:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per rest of appropriate tree. Grutness...wha? 03:00, 5 October 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:Animal rights memorials[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 as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 17:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: monuments and memorials are merged in parent category fgnievinski (talk) 23:12, 4 October 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:3rd-century BC establishments in Mexico[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. MER-C 18:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, there is no need to have a modern country in parallel to an ancient civilization tree. In an earlier discussion the Guatemala tree for this period was merged to Maya civilization as well. The articles are still kept together in Category:Maya sites in Campeche within the Mexican tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 4 October 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:Cineflix original programming[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 18:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misnamed category, using the format of the "Television series by network" tree for what's actually a "Television series by production studio" category. We use "[Company] original programming" to cover the television networks that broadcast the shows, and "Television series by [Company]" to cover the production studios that made them, not vice versa. And, in fact, this has itself long been miscategorized in the "Television series by network" tree instead of the "Television series by studio" tree, until I corrected it just now. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 4 October 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:Japanese cooking tools[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Category:Japanese cooking tools

Category:Mega Man (Original Series)[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Category:Mega Man (Original Series)

Category:V (TV network) original programming[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. The nominated pages should be moved to overwrite the current pages at the target names, which were all created by me following discussions on the Speedy page, e.g. [1]. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: When a television network rebrands but otherwise continues to operate, we don't need to keep separate categories for each individual brand identity -- for one thing, some of the programs in these categories are still airing, meaning they would technically have to be filed as both "old network original programming" and "new network original programming" simultaneously and thus creating unnecessary category bloat. For comparison, Category:CTV 2 original programming does not have separate subcategories for its days as "NewNet", "A-Channel" or "A", but just keeps all of its past and present programming together under the CTV 2 name -- and Category:Much (TV channel) original programming doesn't have a separate subcategory for programs that aired when it was called "MuchMusic", Category:Yes TV original programming doesn't have a separate subcategory for programs that aired when it was called "CTS", Category:UniMás original programming doesn't have a separate subcategory for programs that aired when it was called "TeleFutura", Category:Ion Television original programming doesn't have a separate subcategory for programs that aired when it was called "Pax", Category:Ici Radio-Canada Télé original programming doesn't have a separate subcategory for programs that aired when it was called "Télévision de Radio-Canada", and on and so forth. These were previously proposed for speedy and opposed on "but the new name isn't what the network was called at the time" grounds, but categorizing shows by broadcaster does not work the same way as categorizing television series by their actual production company — if a production company becomes a division of another one via merger or acquistion, then we leave the production category at the name that the production shingle had at the time rather than collapsing everything into one giant catchall for the new parent corporation, but if a television network or production company simply rebrands itself but remains the same entity otherwise, then we keep its programming together in one category rather than chunking it out into subcategories for each individual rebrand. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I don't think we need to keep separate categories for programming that existed under a different name if it just a rebranding. Rebranding happens often enough; I think it makes more sense to have a single category for a single entity when we only have one article for that entity. I agree with the distinctions the nominator draws between these categories and categories for more consequential changes to production companies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The categories are now outdated. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 04:55, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong oppose. Preserving historically accuracy is not a question of opinion or "category bloat". Placing a show that aired on the V network and, such as L'Attaque à 5, in the Noovo category is at best, misleading the reader. When done, its called anachronistic. I'll note that there is a working consensus in the film, TV, and most sport categories that such mergers should not happen. If this should be changed, it should be brought to a community decision and not backdoor to a very low-viewed venue. I'll note at least one previous discussion which opposed renaming Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 16#Category:ABC Family (red links are because the categories have been renamed to use "original programming" since). If the nom has identified places where the categories have TV programs which are lumped in together, the correct thing to do is fix them, not create even more of a mess. --Gonnym (talk) 14:36, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus in the film and TV categories that we do not merge production studio categories on the basis of mergers or acquisitions that post-dated the show's active production — but there is not, and never has been a consensus that we do not merge or rename television network categories on the basis of a mere rebranding. The two situations are not analogous, and do not necessarily have to both be handled the same way — if there was a genuinely meaningful distinction of format between the "old" and "new" networks, such as if a "women's channel" rebranded itself and retooled its programming as a "men's channel", then there might be legitimate reasons to keep separate categories on the grounds that the relationship between the old programming and the new category name was misleading, but not if the name changes but the overall programming focus stays the same. And category bloat (as well as duplicate categorization rules) does apply if a program such as Space/CTV Sci-Fi's Killjoys or Bravo/CTV Drama's Carter or V/Noovo's Occupation Double ends up having to be filed in both categories simultaneously with each other because its production and airing crossed the rebranding.
And by the same token, if a mere rebranding forces us to keep separate programming categories, then it should also force us to keep separate affiliate station categories for the exact same reasons. Do we need to keep CFJP-DT catted as both a V affiliate and a Noovo affiliate now, even though it stayed affiliated with the same service and that service just changed its name? No, we really don't. And if we don't need to do it for the stations, then why do we need to do it for their programming? Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
but there is not, and never has been a consensus that we do not merge or rename television network categories on the basis of a mere rebranding. that's true, if you ignore the example I gave, and I'm sure there are others. Also, And by the same token, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And just to emphasis what I wrote above, instead of hiding this discussion and forcing changes without really checking what the community thinks, it would be much more beneficial to bring this to WP:NCTV and actually see. That will give us a much more clearer result. --Gonnym (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I ignore the one example you gave, when I provided numerous examples where we acted exactly as I describe? I must have missed whatever math class taught you that "one" is larger than "many". Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If a network ceases to operate, then the historically named category makes sense to keep but, even after reading the sincere concerns above, I don't see a navigational value to keeping them with a rebranding. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:16, 1 November 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:Luigi games[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 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Mario video games. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:04, 4 October 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:Mario platform games[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Mario series is at its core a platforming series, making these mainline games of the series. They don't require a subcategory and can be classified simply as "Mario video games". ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:55, 4 October 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:Artificial scripts in literature, film and games[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 real consensus on what to do, apart from agreement that the current category should not stand. Defaulting to a rename as nominated, but this is without prejudice to a future nomination of Category:Constructed scripts in fiction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The change from "Artificial scripts" to "Constructed scripts" is C2D per Constructed script which Artificial script redirects to. The second part is the actual issue. The category currently has 4 pages and a Middle Earth category. All related to fictional content. Both Star Trek and Middle Earth (with the upcoming TV series) can also apply to television. Instead of listing all media types this category applies to, it can simply use "in fiction". Gonnym (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, I forgot I created it :)
I edited it a bit, and now most entries are actually about games. Some of them are redirects, according to WP:INCOMPATIBLE. But I don't actually mind changing it to just "fiction". Whether it's OK to include games under fiction is a philosophical question, and I don't have a strong opinion about the answer to it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Artificial scripts, there are too few entries that are articles to justify its own category. Even artificial scripts used in fiction are still legitimate, real artificial scripts, so I see no reason to differentiate either.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename "artificial scripts" to "constructed scripts" per WP:C2D. No opinion about the remainder of the rename or about the merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge very few articles (mostly redirects, which probably cannot be turned into articles as they are mostly cruft and in-universe relevant only). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:17, 8 October 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:Foreign character warning boxes[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 to Category:Language maintenance templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This extraordinarily US-centric name must be replaced. Taken at face value, surely I should attach it to the dollar sign article because that is a foreign character where I live? Characters (glyphs) have no nationality. "Non-English" is a possibility but suggestions towards a consensus alternative are welcome. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: the category contains just two templates and one sub-cat, so it is also questionable under wp:SMALLCAT. Would a merge up into Category:Language maintenance templates be a better solution? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having been working lately in the parent category Category:Wikipedia multilingual support templates, I too noticed this. The original category had many more templates which were merged into {{Contains special characters}}, leaving only 2 templates there. This doesn't need its own category. --Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge... though I think we should still watch out for those shifty foreign characters! ;) Grutness...wha? 15:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Creator here. No problem whatsoever with appropriate corrections now that this isn't 2008, though the hyperbole in the nomination is a little excessive considering I'm not even in the US. 143.176.236.116 (talk) 20:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge it now we've been sufficiently warned about foreign characters. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 8 October 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:Ahl al-Kisa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Category:Ahl al-Kisa

Category:National Health Insurance schemes[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:National health insurance schemes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be an instance of categorising articles together just because the subjects share the same name, which should not be done. "National Health Insurance" isn't a specific thing shared across these countries, it's just a name which happens to be used by quite a few. Suggest upmerging to the parent cat. Otherwise, even if "national health insurance" was shown to be a specific concept distinct from universal healthcare, it should be decapitalised. Paul_012 (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportUniversal health care is a more useful grouping. It's not helpful to split it in this way. Rathfelder (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:National health insurance schemes lower cased, as these are such. And few National health insurance schemes are "Universal" in nature (as there are limits on eligibility based on nationality, citizenship, how many years one has paid into the program, etc. Also, on this side of the Atlantic "schemes" has a negative connotation (such as fraud), where "plans" or "laws" sounds more neutrally worded. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:23, 8 October 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:Loriculus[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: reverse merge. MER-C 14:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Loriculus is a duplicate category about the same species as Category:Hanging parrots, only named by its Latin name. The Latin name Loriculus is a redirect to the eponymous article Hanging parrot. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't the usual convention to categorise species articles by taxonomic name (and plain English categories used for cultural aspects? If so, this should probably be reverse-merged. --Paul_012 (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Paul 012, I'm sorry, I'm not aware of such conventions. I've found this issue at User:SDZeroBot/Category cycles/1—both categories are subcategories of each other. —⁠andrybak (talk) 11:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The two categories refer to the same thing and undermine each other. Category:Loriculus contains eight species articles and Category:Hanging parrots ten species or subspecies articles. Together the categories contain all the 16 species and subspecies listed in the Hanging parrot article, but only two are in both categories. I'm neutral on which should be the name of the merged category. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other categories in the parent category Category:Psittaculini are all genus names, so the merged category should be Category:Loriculus. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:36, 4 October 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:Catalyst support[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 to Category:Catalysis. MER-C 18:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only 2 pages: the eponymous Catalyst support and Monolith (catalyst support). I checked the head article for other pages which could be added to the category, but found none. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom but I'm not sure of the target. The articles don't seem to be about catalysts so they may better be moved to Category:Catalysis. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest a merge to Category:Catalysis instead, since catalysts supports aren't actually catalysts themselves. In other words, it would be wrong to add them to the set category at Category:Catalysts instead of the topic category. bibliomaniac15 23:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisting comment: consensus is to merge but there is no consensus as to where. MER-C 09:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Catalysis per Marcocapelle & Bibliomaniac15. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:03, 4 October 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:People with anxiety disorders[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPDEF, this is practically never a defining characteristic of anyone. While famous people sometimes talk about it (along with just about every aspect of their lives), no one is famous for having an anxiety disorder. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, but upon deletion the subcategories should be parented to Category:People with mental illnesses. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont see why this category should be treated differently from other mental health problems. Rathfelder (talk) 15:30, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Mental disorders should be as defining as other health problems. We list famous people who had such problems, not necessarily people who became famous because of their health problems. Dimadick (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Wikipedia has noted that "People with these conditions should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual." I don't believe that anyone is defined by anxiety disorder and as such anxiety disorder should not be a defining characteristic. Jurisdicta (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these folks (and I haven't checked them all) seem to be notable for something else than this. No opposition to a sourced list (keeping WP:BLP in mind). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The list already exists. Looking at how the category currently looks like the Hollywood A-list, there could be an interesting study to be made about the bias in talking about your anxiety disorder to the press (rather than, say, your doctor) and being a) an American and b) an entertainer. This is not defining for those people, and not representative of people with anxiety disorder. Place Clichy (talk) 12:59, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the category is full of people from show business whose anxiety is not defining is an argument for purging it, not for deleting. For some people anxiety disorders are defining. Rathfelder (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of someone with a wp article for whom this is a defining characteristic (for wp categorization)? The articles typically begin something like "Nicole Mary Kidman ... is an Australian actress and producer." (not "... is a person with an anxiety disorder."). DexDor (talk) 10:50, 24 October 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:Middle English language[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Much better and concise name. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Support -- I not not vote on this first time around because I saw no problem. I do not now think there is one, because Middle England is known as the Midlands, except perhaps in some political rhetoric. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Procedural) keep per Oculi. I'd probably remain neutral if all sibling categories would be nominated as well. But not one at a time. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and per part of Marcocapelle's reasoning. I would go along with a group rename, too, per WP:C2D. Just be sure to nominate the categories whose articles don't include "language" in their titles. And this could be applied much more broadly to language categories (in both directions: if we have "Category:Fooian" but the article is "Fooian language" because "Fooian" can also refer to the culture more broadly, then the category should be moved to "Category:Fooian language"). It's more important that C2D apply (because the rationales for titling the articles a certain way are generally valid) than to impose C2C blindly just for the sake of consistency.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:56, 26 October 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:Boonie Bears[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 18:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category whose primary contents are the eponymous article and a series of films, which are already categorized within an appropriate films scheme. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The category also contains some templates excluding the main article and other films. It's main category and has also a sub-category of films. Empire AS Talk! 01:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One is a subpage of your user space, one is a userbox, and all that's left is a template (which do not belong in content categories per WP:CAT#T). This doesn't warrant an eponymous parent per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the subpage. That's a show-related template which I have on my subpage. That template contains this category. How can we apply WP:OCEPON here. It's not a person but a television programme/show. It is a parent category for Category:Boonie Bears films. Empire AS Talk! 12:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a parent for one subcategory. It adds an unnecessary level for too little content. Look at Category:Kim Possible – it has articles on episodes, characters, video games, a lot more than just films, so it's warranted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, where should Template:Boonie Bears (navbox) and a userbox should go? Because, it's the only category for them. Empire AS Talk! 01:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is no actual content in the category except for the main article. The templates should go to a templates category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & Marcocapelle. Templates don't need to be in content categories. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Unnecessary. Empire AS Talk! 10:09, 19 October 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:Former CBC Television affiliates[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_2#American television stations by former network affiliation and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_2#Category:Former CBC Television stations Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't the same as American network affiliates. CBC affiliates were compelled to be part of the network and only became independent gradually and with permission of what is now the CRTC, usually when the CBC was able to replace them with an owned-and-operated station. There are no longer any affiliates, all the stations at present are owned and operated by the CBC but the former status of these stations as affiliates is an important aspect of Canadian broadcasting history. Sowny (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Sowny has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a previously banned user. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We have a longstanding consensus against categorizing radio or television stations by former network affiliations that they no longer still hold, for the same reason why we don't categorize them for former owners or dropped formats. The idea that television stations in Canada had to be CBC affiliates literally only applied in the 1950s, and died forever in 1961 with the launch of CTV and the concurrent deaffiliation of CHCH-TV to become Canada's first independent station — so television stations simply are not permanently defined by something that stopped being true 60 years ago, and there's no reason why Canada has a uniquely Canadian need for a special exemption from sitewide consensus on this. Bearcat (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 October 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:Starship Troopers navigational boxes[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 to parents. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Yes, a category for single template is not needed. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:19, 4 October 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:European history by nation navigational boxes[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: split as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost all of the templates in the category are sidebar templates. The exceptions are Template:Galicia and Lodomeria timeline and Template:Czechoslovakia timeline. The new name for the navbox category is per convention in Category:History and events templates by continent, like the parent category Category:Europe history templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:54, 4 October 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:Sammarinese political party shortname 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Direction of the merge chosen for consistency with other categories in Category:Political party shortname templates (e.g. Category:Armenia political party shortname templates and Category:Zimbabwe political party shortname templates). —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge, they are clearly duplicates. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to noun form which seems to be standard. Grutness...wha? 15:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but do we really need this at all? San Marino is a city state enclaved in Italy. I would have thought that it did not merit a category tree more complicated than any other city of its size. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the size of the country, there are still quite a few political parties that each seem to require a template. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 4 October 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.

Neologisms, words and phases introduced in time periods[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/rename all into an appropriate Category:DATE neologisms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Words and phrases introduced in the <century>" to "Phrases introduced in the <century>"
"Words coined in the <decade>" to "<decade> neologisms"
"Words and phrases introduced in the <decade>" to "Phrases introduced in the <decade>"
"Words and phrases introduced in <year>" to "<year> neologisms"
Nominator's rationale: quote from Neologism: A neologism [...] is a relatively recent or isolated term, word, or phrase (emphasis mine).
I've been going through the "words and phrases introduced in" and "words coined in" categories to make sure that the "Words" category is included in the "Words and phrases" category, until I noticed that a) some of the articles in the "Words" categories are actually phrases and b) there was previous discussion which ended in a rename for century level categories from "Words coined in <century>" to "<century> neologisms". I've reverted my edits to these categories to make this a cleaner CFD.
Per century and per decade, there is enough articles in most categories, that a separate "Phrases" subcategory makes sense. Per year, a single "neologisms" category should be enough.
In the end, every "Phrases introduced in <century>" category shall be a subcategory of a corresponding "<century> neologisms" category. Please note, that at the moment "Words and phases per year" categories are subcats of corresponding "Words coined per decade" categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

footnotes

  1. ^ Note, that the "words" tree will become the "neologisms" tree after renaming
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_October_4&oldid=989021757"