Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 1 October 3 >

October 2[edit]

Category:Digital newspapers by region[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: The result of this discussion is to rename and move as proposed and for the reasons of the proposing editor. The only dissenting editor has not explained his reasons, and the merits of the proposal are self-evident. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with parent Category:Newspapers by continent, and move Middle East sub-category into Asia. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging PanchoS as category creator. – Fayenatic London 20:15, 2 October 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:First Spouses of the Philippines[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) 03:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category was recently speedily renamed to "First Spouses" to match the main article; the article has since been renamed, following a discussion, to First Lady or First Gentleman of the Philippines. Speedy renaming was opposed on the grounds that the WP:C2D criteria were not fully met. – Fayenatic London 16:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
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.

Children's comedy series[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) 03:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarifying the kind of series being categorized. Trivialist (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom The current name is confusing. Based on the title, I thought it was about "film series". Dimadick (talk) 06:18, 3 October 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:Commerce[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) 01:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:NONDEF. The article Commerce provides very few clues on which articles should be in this category. Besides "commerce" is hardly referred to in the articles in this category; the word "commercial" appears more often but we don't categorize by adjectives. As a result of the before-mentioned issues, the category contains a mishmash of quite unrelated articles that are already better categorized elsewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:45, 2 October 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:Arrowverse[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: The clear consensus was to keep the present category, without renaming or splitting. To try to lay to rest at least the second of the concerns of the nominator, I would like to bring the example of Category:Star Wars, which is also 'a kind of "universe" category' and includes both fictional and real-wold categories and articles. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up on the Arrowverse multiverse nomination that was relisted yesterday, see here. This category contains articles about a TV series and its spin-offs, there is no point in having a kind of "universe" category as a parent category of the TV series. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is See Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe as a similar example. Everything is categorized correctly at this time. Putting all the articles in Cat Arrowverse into Cat Arrow (TV series) would be incorrect and an inappropriate way to categorize them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed the nomination after previous comment - I agree that most content of the category is not about the Arrow TV series itself but about its spinoffs - and the change is also more consistent with the other nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Arrow (TV series) spin-offs" is the "Arrowverse", so there still is no reason for a name change. You are suggesting changing a correct name to an incorrect name, that would be used for the same thing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arrowverse is fictional content of Arrow; Arrow spin-offs would be a TV production category, that's quite different. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:43, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought production categories were trivial in nature. Fiction tends to be more important. Dimadick (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all into a single category: "one franchise: one category" is what I like to see a[[lied in these cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is that helpful, when there are enough articles/content to populate Cat:Arrow (TV series), which in turn is a subcategory of Cat:Arrowverse. As I've stated, moving the articles in Cat:Arrowverse into Cat:Arrow (TV series) is not correct, and removing Cat:Arrow (TV series) is certainly not helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think User:Peterkingiron agrees to a certain extent with the rationale of the nomination, in the sense that the content of this category is primarily about the franchise. Is that correct? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that we should only have one category about one fictional universe/franchise, not multiple ones for each of its different emanations. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 14 October 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:20th-century American 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: The result of this discussion seems to be to keep this category. Both because there are more "keep" votes than "delete" votes, and also because of the "procedural keep" votes. In reply to the argument raised by several editors that this category was deleted in the 2010 discussion, I would like to say that I see reason to differentiate between this category and the others like it which were restored on one side, and those which remain deleted on the other, in that these categories are more defining and are part of a logically built category tree, which does not hold true for the other categories. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is simply WP:NON-DEFINING. There is no factor that unites the 7,500+ articles in this category. A politician in Florida in 1999 has nothing in common with a politician from Idaho in 1901; on the other hand the 1999 Florida politician woul likely have much in common with a Florida politician from 2001, but they're in seperate categories. Consensus in March 2010 was to delete and nothing appears to have changed since then to make this category more useful. Alansohn (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep pending wider consensus about its parent tree. I'm not strongly wedded to the idea that categorizing politicians by century of activity is actually warranted or useful, but there's not a single thing true here that isn't also true of its 35 other "20th-century politicians by country" siblings, their parent Category:20th-century politicians, or the entire Category:Politicians by century schematic. I might in fact agree with the total deletion of the entire tree if somebody were willing to batch them all into one bundle — in fact, I did cast a delete vote in the discussion the nominator points out, but the scheme has since been much more extensively reintroduced nonetheless. But they have to be considered in toto, and there is no valid reason to delete this in isolation as long as all of the others still exist. Bearcat (talk) 00:57, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background/Question @Bearcat: That broader discussion already occurred here and the consensus, at least at that time, was to delete the whole tree. Did you recreate this category based on the sister categories you mentioned above or were there other factors? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another editor recreated Category:20th-century politicians in 2011. It is quite easy to recreate a deleted category without realising; perhaps it should be made harder. Oculi (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus can change, and actual practice has some bearing on the determination of "consensus" — there have been lots of situations (e.g. having separate categories for male actors and female actresses) where consensus was once clearly against them, but then they got recreated again and the resulting CFD discussions changed the consensus rather than redeleting the categories. If a category scheme has been as extensively reimplemented as this has, to the point that many categories now exist which were never part of the original discussion at all and thus can't be simply speedied on the basis of that original discussion, then by definition the "consensus" is at best disputed rather than unequivocally clear. Under those circumstances, it's entirely appropriate to hold a new discussion to test where consensus now stands, rather than simply resting on the old one as permanently binding in and of itself with no allowance for the possibility of consensus ever changing. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep By century categories are both defining and useful. I find it much easier to locate articles using this category than going through the messy, confusing, and somewhat useless category tree which separates them by state. I would not be opposed to deleting the state-relevant articles. Dimadick (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – recreation of category deleted by cfd. I would agree that the others should go too. Oculi (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as per top.— JJBers (talk) 23:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete I'm not seeing the navigation benefits of a category with 7,500+ entries that is still vastly under-populated. Sometimes under-populated categories become viable over time as the article count grows but we have the opposite situation here: the category is even more overwhelmingly large than the last time we deleted it. (I don't disagree with Bearcat above about the other categories sharing the same fate but I'm comfortable using a follow up nomination for those. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I am agnostic on the question, although in my opinion categories running into the thousands of entries are of limited navigational utility. Not sure if sub-categories by state can be conveniently sprung from this or not. Carrite (talk) 01:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a too indistinguishable characteristic. While I'm all in favor of people by century categories up to the 19th century for historical reasons, the scheme becomes totally useless for the 20th and 21st century. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerise -- This should be useful as a container category, without articles, acting as a parent to categories for holder of (and sometimes, candidates for) political office. purge of all articles, which should be in more specific categories, probably mainly by state. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pending a broad discussion about the general category tree. It would be strange indeed to apply this rule only to politicians (and the likelihood would be the category would be created again). We're well into the 21st century anyway, so the "20th century" tree has more merits. Personally I find the centuries are defining for some people and less so for others (who maybe span the century boundaries). But, unless we go to "in the first half of the 20th century", in most situations "century" is the best commonly defined period of time we have. Sionk (talk) 06:01, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In general this is a better way to categorize people than Category:20th-century American actors ect. The reason, political careers are on average shorter than acting careers, and so the century overlap tends to be lower. Also, realistically this is a much easier to split by sub-national level category. We have clear groups for this category in the 18th, 19th, 20th and 21st century. Some categories are worth having as huge categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep per User:Bearcat. I can see arguments on both sides for this - whether it should be kept or eliminated - but if that's the case this discussion needs to be widened to consider everything in the category tree. Until that happens there's no reason this one alone should be removed. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:15, 27 October 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_October_2&oldid=1090392226"