Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 12 September 14 >

September 13[edit]

Category:Zattoo[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) 04:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains one article, Zattoo. Trivialist (talk) 23:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Neutralitytalk 00:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as EPONYMOUS -- but the one article needs better categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:B Flow[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) 04:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One article for a song already located appropriately in the subject category Category:B Flow songs suggests no need for the eponymous parent category per WP:OCEPON. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films based on teleplays[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Strictly speaking, a "television play" and a "teleplay" aren't exactly the same thing -- the television play is the end product, while the teleplay is its script -- but you'd really have to split hairs here to distinguish whether a film was based on the "television play" or the "teleplay". The entire Category:Teleplays tree, in fact, is so poorly distinguished from Category:Television plays that I've nominated the whole shebang for merging below -- the head article teleplay itself is really the only thing in it that couldn't be renamed to "television play(s)" without altering its context inaccurately. Since Category:Television plays is the more populated and better defined category, it's the one that should actually parent and pass on its family name to this one. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion should be closed in accordance with the outcome of the broader discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

English, Scottish and Welsh radio[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy:

see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_11#Radio_by_country Tim! (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. I don't understand Nyttend's objection. The British → United Kingdom move is a done deal that's already happened and isn't being nominated for anything now, so this isn't the correct place to raise an objection to it — but the fact that British → UK is "less of an easy mapping" than Wales → Welsh or England → English says nothing about why the Wales and England categories should somehow not be moved for compliance with an established naming convention. Consensus was established in the prior discussion to switch from "Demonym radio" to "Radio in Country", so these categories should correctly follow. Bearcat (talk) 17:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, particularly to avoid the ambiguity, considering English and Welsh are languages as well as national identities. Sionk (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – subcat of Category:Media in England etc. Oculi (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - regardless of the mapping of United Kingdom‎/British, the UK category is named correctly as a child of Category:Radio by country; these categories should also match. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:48, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- but I am not sure why any of these are necessary: a single UK (or GB)-wide category would probably be adequate. Several of the sub-categories are however (apparently) about ethnicity, not location. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Teleplays[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) 02:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Strictly speaking, a "television play" and a "teleplay" aren't exactly the same thing -- the television play is the end product, while the teleplay is its script -- but I don't see much substantive basis for us to really maintain separate category trees for them: aside from the head article teleplay itself, this contains just three subcategories of which one has to be renamed and decatted from here because its contents aren't actually teleplays at all, and both of the other two could be named either "teleplays" or "television plays" without actually altering their context (and one of them, further, could also be renamed as "television episodes" without actually changing the point of definition in any substantive way.) Yes, they're interrelated but technically different things -- but we'd really have to split hairs to actually categorize on the distinction. Bearcat (talk) 16:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Screenplays by Harlan Ellison[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:Television episodes written by Harlan Ellison. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misnamed category. A screenplay is the script for a film, not for a television episode, but all of the contents here are episodes of television anthology series like The Twilight Zone or The Outer Limits — meaning they're more properly described and categorized as "teleplays", "television plays" or "television episodes" than as "screenplays". While Ellison did write a few actual screenplays according to his article, they all went unproduced and thus none of them actually have articles to file here as of now. I'm not entirely sure what should be the new name for this — is it Category:Teleplays by Harlan Ellison, Category:Television plays by Harlan Ellison or Category:Television episodes written by Harlan Ellison? — but none of the things filed here are "screenplays". Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Teleplays by Joss Whedon[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misnamed category. The term teleplay is not interchangeable with all television scripts at all, but is a specific type of thing which doesn't actually include anything categorized here: these are episodes of regular drama series, while a teleplay is the script for a standalone production such as an episode of an anthology series or a television play. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "teleplay" the common term for any screenplay for television? The Writers' Guild of America uses the term that way: [2] Trivialist (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how our article is defining the term, though, so if there's a problem with our article, then it needs to be fixed. And even that document doesn't use "teleplay" in such a way that it's automatically interchangeable with "written by" — there are three different kinds of writing credits that a television writer can be given ("written", "story" and "teleplay"), and it's entirely possible for all three of those credits to go to three different people or for some of them to not really be applicable at all. So even if they're right and our article is wrong, that still wouldn't necessarily guarantee that Joss Whedon actually has a teleplay credit on all of them. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- "teleplay" is a meaningless neologism to me as an Englishman. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Canadian Forces Decoration[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) 02:00, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just a service medal awarded virtually automatically for long service. Not awarded for any merit. We have deleted categories for many decorations exactly like this (e.g. Category:Recipients of the Territorial Decoration). -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anyone in this category, would already be in the appropriate Canadian military category making this redundant. Hitting the 12 year mark is arbitrary and non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pro-Euro Conservative Party politicians[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:Politicians of the Pro-Euro Conservative Party. This was a bit of a tricky one to evaluate, so I'm going to explain my reasoning in depth. Of the deletes, nearly all were based on exactly the misunderstanding of the category's purpose that the keeps and renames addressed in their rationales, so for the purposes of sorting out the consensus here I've discounted them. That leaves only one delete that actually addresses the question of whether the political party had enough of an impact to warrant a category — and even that one delete vote contains the proviso that renaming would also be acceptable. Which leaves me with three renames, two straight keeps and one person who withdrew their deletion rationale after the category's actual purpose was clarified, thus effectively counting as a keep as well. The point that the current name is too easily confused with "Conservative Party politicians who support the Euro" is persuasive, particularly given that most of the delete voters did confuse it with exactly that — and since renaming is a form of keeping, and none of the keeps addressed any specific reason why "keep at existing name" would be preferable over "keep at a new name", there was no reason to treat the keeps and the renames as mutually contradictory positions. Some pruning may in fact have to be done per Timrollpickering, but that will have to be done by somebody with more depth of knowledge about this — I'm not in a position to evaluate who does or doesn't properly belong in the category. This conclusion is also, for the record, without prejudice against relisting the renamed category for a new deletion discussion if, for example, the pruning job ends up turning this into something that would flunk WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 16:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cat based on fluid, non-defining characteristic —swpbT 13:54, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – politicians will take up (and change) many positions as time passes. The category system is not equipped to keep track of these. Oculi (talk) 14:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category had no article and no parent categories, and was thus ill-equipped to survive without the intervention of someone such as Timrollpickering below, whose recollection of political ephemera is impressive. Oculi (talk) 22:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and prune This is not a position category but a political party one, though the nominator's confusion is yet another reason why this party was terribly named. The Pro-Euro Conservative Party was a short-lived body around the turn of the millennium ("Pro-Euro" meaning the single currency rather than wider membership of the EU), with no electoral impact but did attract a disproportionate amount of media coverage and the support of a handful of retired Conservative politicians. However some only wrote public letters in support rather than actually joining and others make no mention of this in their articles so may have been included because of support for the European cause and they should be removed. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete politician by position is a bad idea and will lead to untold cat clutter (even if the politician changes positiuons); moreover, categories cannot capture nuance. Take "anti-abortion" as a position; does that include even if the mother's life is endangered by the fetus? Do politicians on either side of that divide (or what if it's rape? or incest? divides) nevertheless all get categorized together? ditto the pro-Euro folks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: rename to Category:Politicians of the Pro-Euro Conservative Party which is slightly less ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This was an ephemeral political party that made no impact. The article is worth having and we might listify the people. The continued existence of this category is liable to cause confusion with Conservative Party politicians opposing leaving the EU. If it is kept, rename per Marcocapelle. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Expatriate basketball people in Montenegro[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:  Relisted at 2016 SEP 29 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:59, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too specific to ever be populated —swpbT 13:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Festivals on the Navajo Nation[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) 09:20, 22 September 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Weird pile of obsessive hypercategorization: the category's head "article" is List of festivals in the Navajo Nation, which is actually just a redirect to a Navajo Nation subsection in List of festivals in North America (not even List of festivals in the United States, which is where it would belong) rather than a standalone article, and it otherwise exists as a container for four subcategories which are being used to overcategorize just two festivals total: "cultural festivals" contains the same head redirect and "arts festivals", which in turn contains the same head redirect, the two festivals and the "film festivals" and "music festivals" categories, each of which again contains the same head redirect and one of the same two festivals that are already in the "arts festivals" parent. For added bonus, each of them was being incorrectly bumped higher up the tree, so that it was a direct subcategory of a "festivals by country" category instead of a "festivals in the United States" category. Two articles do not need a five-category nest to contain them, as WP:SMALLCATs like this are not an aid to navigation — in fact, with just two festivals to categorize, even one dedicated category for them is still a SMALLCAT — and both of the festivals are already in all of the appropriate "Festivals in State" and "Type festivals in the United States" categories anyway, so apart from readding the two festivals to Category:Navajo culture there's no categoryredirecting needed here. Bearcat (talk) 05:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category, with no objection to recreating if 5 or so articles ever appear on any of these topics. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the first. Merge the rest into it. This will probably make a category with a very few articles (not none). I would suggest that this be parented to whichever state the Navajo Nation's territory is within. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Even if everything were upmerged to the first category, with just two actual entries it would still run afoul of WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:La Salle College[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 target to Category:Lasallian schools in Hong Kong. See also here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles, little room for expansion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- but Brigant Cassian was its second principal and will not fit well in the target. We need to recategorise his bio-article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from North Liberty, Iowa[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:04, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Every community that exists does not automatically get one of these to contain just one or two people; the people are categorized only at the level of the parent county until such time as there are at least five or six articles to populate a community-specific subcat. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom and our usual practice for cats like this. Neutralitytalk 00:57, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge There is no reason to go below the county level for one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for Now With no objection to recreating if 5 or so articles ever appear. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_13&oldid=1138410421"