Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

February 17[edit]

Category:Music memes[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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Keyboard Cat is a music-based meme. The Hampsterdance Song is a song based on a meme. Most of the rest are songs used in memes.

At the very least, the category needs a heading explaining what the category is. On a practical level, I think we need to figure out what the category should be and title it appropriately. SummerPhDv2.0 22:50, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ophthalmology organizations[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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To include Optometry organisations Rathfelder (talk) 18:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Quasi resurrection[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, as the one article in the category is in Category:Premature burials already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one member with low chance of addition Editor2020 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Category:Resurrection is entirely about the religious veneration of resurrected people. That does not seem to apply to this cat's only article: Florence Wadham. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: That does not fairly represent the category; Eutychus, Jairus' daughter and some others in it do not appear to be venerated. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Fair comment. My point would have been better expressed as "Category:Resurrection is about resurrection in religion". Both Eutychus, Jairus' daughter are notable as biblical figures, so fit that scope ... whereas Florence Wadham's story is about the dynastic significance of a woman buried alive. Wadham should really be placed in Category:Premature burials, which I have just done.[1] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Charitable organizations[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 this is unambiguous in the plural, there is no policy reason to resist the consensus here. – Fayenatic London 07:23, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Much more common term. None of the subcategories use the term Charitable organization Rathfelder (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – the article is Charitable organization, the rename in the opposite direction was made at cfd in 2012 and the subcats don't match because no-one has bothered to rename them. Oculi (talk) 16:26, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was a speedy discussion, based on the premise that charity was ambiguous, which is disputable. "Charities" is not ambiguous. It clearly refers to organisations, and the article makes it clear that Charities is the commoner term. Rathfelder (talk) 18:56, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, rename per the rationale of least effort . If people felt strongly about it they would have renamed the 100s of subcats. Oculi (talk) 19:39, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have almost certainly been named for uniformity with the parent. Renaming the parent would lead to the opportunity to rename the subcats. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2016 Open d'Orléans[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 for now. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only has one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:36, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've just added 2 more entries to this category so that it's consistent with the other ones that were created. Iffy★Chat -- 10:32, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now per WP:SMALLCAT, as part of a series under Category:Open d'Orléans. All of the subcats have 3 pages, so there's a case for upmerging them all ... but I see no case for singling out this one. A group nom would be needed.
Also, this nomination is to delete, which would remove the pages from Category:Open d'Orléans. I don't know why @WilliamJE proposed deletion instead of merge to all parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:11, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Uncategorized programming languages[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 in honour of Bertrand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, unnecessary category because uncategorized programming languages simply go into Category:Programming languages. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Picture books by Leo and Diane Dillon[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:Books illustrated by Leo and Diane Dillon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for clarification, in all other instances "picture books by" means "picture books written (and possibly illustrated) by". This category is the only exception in which the subjects have only illustrated the books. See also the below nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see any particular advantage in renaming just so that it can be preserved as a subcat of Category:Children's picture books when many similar categories have been upmerged/deleted. I'd suggest just upmerging to Category:Books illustrated by Leo and Diane Dillon (the books are already listed in Category:American children's picture books). Robina Fox (talk) 17:22, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is also a good solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Children's picture books by illustrator[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, with one exception in this category, these picture books have been written and illustrated by the same person, so the subcats - save one - are already in Category:Picture books by writer. The one exception, Category:Picture books by Leo and Diane Dillon can be reparented to Category:Children's picture books. See also the above nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support:With the recent changes, this category has become redundant. I think what we really need is a list of picture book creators with their notable books. Robina Fox (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kollywood lists of awards and nominations[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: moot. *There doesn't seem to be any consensus here, but the deleted-then-restored category is empty, so I will speedy delete it per WP:C1 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Kollywood" is an obvious Hollywood ripoff, and that isn't even the parent article's title. The categories Tollywood (Bengali) lists of awards and nominations, Tollywood (Telugu) lists of awards and nominations and Mollywood lists of awards and nominations too need renaming to match their parent articles. --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Swarm: you have speedily deleted the category under WP:CSD#G5 (Created by blocked user Makhamakhi), but I can't see whether you removed pages from the category. As it was nominated here for renaming rather than deletion, please can you advise how to trace the former contents? – Fayenatic London 12:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored it so that you can look into this further if you wish. But basically this cat was created shortly before the user was blocked as a sock. If you review Ratsama's contribs, you can see that he did add the cat to several articles, but those additions were reverted by another editor. Therefore, the cat was/is empty. Swarm ♠ 13:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, then: Ratsama's work on categorising lists of film awards is here; they have all been reverted, and the other categories deleted, including Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom lists of awards and nominations. @Swarm: Thank you for making this clear. – Fayenatic London 22:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Northern Ireland emigrants to Canada[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: procedural close as category page has not been tagged with notice of the discussion. In any case there is no consensus here among those who happen to have visited this discussion page anyway. – Fayenatic London 21:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is strangely named. Normally one would say "Northern Irish emigrants to Canada". The name of this (and many other categories, actually) is not natural. Imagine, for example, a category called Canada emigrants to the UK. It is awkward and not the normal grammatical usage.75.177.79.101 (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: It is wrong to say that the immigrants tree is undeveloped; it's actually fully developed.
The underlying issue here is that each person who moves from country A to country is both an immigrant to B and an emigrant from A. We capture both attributes (1/ leaving A; 2/ settling in B) in a single category, and there are basically 3 ways of describing that journey:
  1. Emigrants from A to B
  2. Immigrants to B from A
  3. some convoluted form which uses both terms, e.g. Emigrants from A who immigrated to B
Unsurprisingly, the verbose redundancy of option 3 was rejected. I can't recall why option 1 was chosen over option 2, but it doesn't much matter; we did have to choose one or the other. (Personally, I prefer "emigrants" 'cos that reflects the Irish experience, but that is by-the-by)
So each Category:Emigrants from A to B is a subcat of both Category:Emigrants from A and Category:Immigrants to B.
That is why Category:Immigrants to New Zealand has no 'immigrants' subcats at all -- it's cos all its immigrants are labelled "emigrants from [somewhere] to New Zealand". Same with Category:Immigrants to the United States, or any of the other by-country subcats of Category:Immigrants by destination country.
The use of "immigrants" in @Laurel Lodged's ALT suggestion of Category:Immigrants to Canada from Northern Ireland would be needlessly breaking a naming convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator. "Northern Irish" is the least controversial, more inclusive, and plain language usage. The term is preferred by moderates and is apparently increasing in usage across the board, locally.

The definition of "Northern Irish" in the Collins and Cambridge dictionaries is "belonging to or relating to Northern Ireland or its people", or similar. The definitions for Scottish, English and Welsh are also similar.

It is actually really only extremists, and particularly extremist Republicans, who reject the term Northern Irish. An even smaller number of Loyalists reject the term.

If limited to one choice only, "British" continues to be the most popular overall. The Life & Times Survey in 2008 found that, for possibly the first time, "Northern Irish" had become the second most popular identity - beating even the popular "Irish" identity. The results were "British" 37%; "Northern Irish" 29%; "Irish" 26%.

This was reflected in the 2011 Census, which is obviously much more comprehensive. In it, "Northern Irish" was also the second most popular choice, with only "British" beating it. "Irish" was a close third place.

People have preferences to which identity label they would prefer. However, "Northern Irish" appears to be the one label that people have least problem with.

In 2016 some 32% of respondents in the Life & Times chose “British” out of the options that “best” described them. 29% chose “Irish” and 28% chose “Northern Irish”.

The term "Northern Irish" is especially popular amongst Northern Irish young adults: 38% of 18-24 year olds chose Northern Irish. In fact "Northern Irish" was the single most popular choice in that age group, and in the age groups 25-34 and 35-44.

So for everyone younger than 45 years and older than 18, as suggested by this academic survey, "Northern Irish" is THE most popular identity.

It may be telling to note that 42% of those who professed no religion chose "Northern Irish". The term also appears to be slightly more popular with Roman Catholics than with Protestants.

Northern Irish identity is not a particularly new thing either, as it has been discussed specifically politically since at least the 1970s.

The Guardian newspaper, particularly left-wing and sometimes appearing bitterly opposed to the existence of Northern Ireland itself, even has a section 'Northern Irish Politics' in its online publication. The ULTACH Trust, a Gaelic language and culture organisation, mentions "Northern Irish society".

The Northern Ireland Tourist Board, a 'quango' that works closely in conjunction with the tourist board of the Republic of Ireland, has a webpage on the site dedicated to Traditional Northern Irish recipes.

The universities of Glasgow and Stirling also give advice to potential English, Welsh and Northern Irish students thinking about studying there. PPL mentioned that Snow Patrol were the most played Northern Irish act of the 21st century.

The Independent newspaper mentions how the Northern Irish may be able to remain citizens after Brexit.

Roman Catholics who identify primarily as "Northern Irish" are most likely to be moderate SDLP and Alliance Party voters, though a substantial number actually vote for the more hardline Sinn Fein.

Sinn Fein actively ban the use of the term "Northern Ireland" and, as an obvious consequence, "Northern Irish". This is despite some of their voters identifying as Northern Irish.

Strikingly though, in the 2007 Life & Times Survey, when asked how strongly people felt about being described as "Northern Irish", 84% in total felt either "strongly" or "not strongly", while only 15% felt "not at all" Northern Irish. The breakdown is was as follows: "Strongly" 50%; "not very strongly" 34%; "not at all" 15%.

81% of both Roman Catholics and of no religious affiliation felt at least some identification with being Northern Irish, while 88% of Protestants felt some identification.

By comparison, 71% felt somehow affiliated with the term "Ulster", with 28% rejecting it outright; 77% felt affiliation with "Irish" with 23% rejecting that; and 78% felt "British" to some degree or other, with 22% rejecting it outright.

Clearly then, the term "Northern Irish" is more generally acceptable than any of the other most common identities, even if it is not necessarily a primary choice.

I propose, therefore, a change to the titles of categories and articles to "Northern Irish Xs" as opposed to "Xs from Northern Ireland" or the absurd "Northern Ireland Xs" in parent categories and throughout all the other categories. Any controversy could perhaps be changed on a case-by-case basis. Gerry Adams for example, would more likely prefer to be in a category "Irish politicians", although technically speaking he is British. Most other politicians and celebrities etc may also have a preference for British or Irish, but are also probably less likely to object to Northern Irish. It's really only Sinn Fein and other Republican politicians and activists that might have an objection. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 05:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is misunderstanding here, this category is not about identity but it is instead about being from Northern Ireland as one of the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct, Marcocapelle. And it is my understanding that you can, and should, describe a person or thing from a place called X as an Xian, or Xish, etc. That is my proposal. However, somebody suggested that being Northern Irish was somehow "controversial".
I have been at pains to point out that it is only a minority of people who might object to the term. Those people have a political agenda and ban the use of even the name of the country.--75.177.79.101 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom. Thanks for your debate on this. It is my understanding that decisions can change in Wikipedia. An early decision (earliest I can find among the huge number of archives!) can be found here in 2006, so apparently a decision had already been made, and then reversed some years later.
As I mentioned above, the only people to really object to the natural term are hardline Republicans. They object to the name and very existence of the state anyway. So, @Oculi, should Wikipedia give "due credit" to the wishes of a minority and remove all references to "Northern Ireland"? Apparently even around a third of Sinn Fein voters would describe themselves as Northern Irish, according to one of the links I believe I provided above.
If we are to remove, therefore, reference to "Northern Irish", then we should also remove any and all references to "Northern Ireland", because it is definitely "controversial" to some - in fact, to generally the same people who would object to "Northern Irish". While we're at it, we should also withdraw any and all references to "British", as many Scottish (I'm sorry - people from Scotland!) object to the term, as do some People from England and People from Wales.
Of course "British" is more a nationality, whereas Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish and English are all geographical descriptions (obviously, depending on context, they are used as ethnic or sub-national descriptors as well).
I don't know if People from Cornwall, or Cornish people feel about being described as English. Perhaps we should get rid of "English" for that reason, if any do object.
It is certainly an insult to the apparent 85% or so of people who are from there who at least do not mind being referred to by the normal and natural adjective, and an even worse insult to the nearly 30% (and rising) of the population that actually prefer to be described as such. To come to an encyclopedia and be basically told that they do not exist. Wikipedia is certainly taking a political stance - especially if you compare the 85% of people who do not object to the term to the 15% of people who may do. That's a huge majority, and clearly shows that the term "Northern Irish" actually transcends petty politics for most people on either side of the political or religious divide. To capitulate or give due credit to a majority of a minority seems petty. It is also inconsistent with other political sensitivities surrounding the other adjectives as I've outlined three paragraphs up. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 04:00, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Further note: Google's NGRAM viewer would seem to suggest that "Northern Irish" in British English publications far outweighs the usage of "from Northern Ireland". For some reason(!), the number of instances increased in the early 1920s, and then sharply increased again from somewhere in the 1960s. Comparing "Northern Irish" to "northern Irish", again the usage of the proper noun far exceeds the usage of the cardinal context. --75.177.79.101 (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that all categories hqve their first word capitalised, northern Irish immigrants to Canada would become Category:Northern Irish immigrants to Canada and the confusion would continue. For that reason - among others - the pattern "...of/from/in Northern Ireland" is greatly preferred here in Wikipedia for category names. As such I would support a move to either Category:Emigrants from Northern Ireland to Canada or Category:Category:Emigrants to Canada from Northern Ireland. Grutness...wha? 01:12, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, for 4 main reasons:
  1. WP:NPOV: In 12 years at CFD, I don't recall ever seeing a nomination so overtly founded based on blatantly partisan political POV-pushing. The nominator is at least open about their POV-pushing, saying that "only Sinn Fein and other Republican politicians and activists that might have an objection". WP:NPOV is a core policy of en.wp, and it does not involve telling one of Northern Ireland's two main political parties that its views are excluded from any consideration of neutrality, or denouncing them as hardline and extremists. @75.177.79.101: please stop abusing en.wp as a WP:SOAPBOX.
  2. Consistency with other emigrants-from-Norniron cats. This one of 4 subcats of Category:Emigrants from Northern Ireland. Three of them are named "Northern Ireland emigrants to Foo"; the one outlier is Category:Immigrants to the United States from Northern Ireland. Any CfD nomination here should a be a group nomination to restore consistency. The nominator indulges in verbose POV-pushing, but offers no explanation why they believe emigrants to Canada need a naming format different to Category:Northern Ireland emigrants to New Zealand and Category:Northern Ireland emigrants to Australia.
  3. Consistency with the grandparent Category:People from Northern Ireland, and all its subcats, as set at CfD 2009 January 7 and upheld repeatedly since then.
    The nominator explicitly wants to change to the titles of categories and articles to "Northern Irish Xs", and yes WP:Consensus can change ... but the way to propose a change is by a group nomination of Category:People from Northern Ireland, and all its subcats, not by cherry-picking one category.
  4. Data: the 2011 census (summarised in Demography of Northern Ireland#National_identity) shows that only 29.4% of people in Norniron identify as "Northern Irish" (48.4% say British, 28.4% Irish). Note that the figures add up to >100%, because people could tick all options which applied, and only 20.9% identify themselves as "Northern Irish" only.
    So there is no neutral adjective here for identity; there is not even a single adjective which has majority support as a second best, let alone as a primary identity. That is why the NPOV format "from Northern Ireland" was chosen, to sidestep the issue of identity, which has no NPOV descriptor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt 2 rename to Category:Emigrants from Northern Ireland to Canada. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:46, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laurel Lodged: something like that is probably good in principle, but there's no benefit in adding a third naming format to the 4 subcats of Category:Emigrants from Northern Ireland. Whatever happens here, we will need a further discussion to standardise the 4 subcats ... so best to simply close this discussion, and start a new one which is not dominated by the verbose POV-pushing of the IP who opened this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see no reason could not go through now. Let the others look after themselves in due course. A valid alternative proposal is before you. I see no need for a procedural close. Vote and make new nominations if you're minded to do so. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:11, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Laurel Lodged: The reason is simply that avoiding inconsistency is one of most important principles of category naming. Better to have consistent names than perfected names.
          A group nomination of all 4 cannot be opened until this is closed, so flogging the dead horse of POV-pusher's nomination just delays a solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Supplementary !vote: Oppose any and all ALT proposals. This one of 4 subcats of Category:Emigrants from Northern Ireland. Any new title should be applied consistently to all 4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television series with multiple main characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:04, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Virtually the definition of a trivial characteristic. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, trivial and completely arbitrary. You could conceivably put every TV series ever made in here. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- obviously trivial. Every TV play (except monologues) would belong. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - but... it might be worth considering a Category:Television series with ensemble casts, which would make for a slightly more strictly defined alternative. Grutness...wha? 01:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --Lenticel (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. You couldn't put every TV series in it - there are many which clearly have a central character. Jim Michael (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Central" and "main" are not the same thing. Ally McBeal, for instance, was clearly the central character in Ally McBeal — the title told us so — but she wasn't the only main character, because that also encompasses her core coworkers. A show's "main" cast is everybody who plays a significant enough role in all or at least most episodes that their name appears in the main credit sequence rather than the "guest stars" list — and while it's certainly true that there are shows that genuinely have only one main character (The Littlest Hobo, for example, was a show where only one character, the dog, actually carried through from one episode to another), they're very much the exception rather than the rule. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not defining, and indiscriminate. I had this smartass answer planned that the only TV series I could think of that could be honestly said to have just one main character was The Last Man on Earth, but I didn't really watch that and didn't realize that its title was less than literally true. Bearcat (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_17&oldid=871693651"