Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16[edit]

Category:24-hour television news channels[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, but there is a willingness to consider further suggestions for a better name. – Fayenatic London 14:09, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Further 23 renamings of child categories to the scheme "Television news channels in Foo"
Nominator's rationale: A TV channel is a TV channel, not just an individual program/show/series. Apart from that, I can't see why we're limiting this to 24-hour channels. While some channels will have a 24/7 full news program, most others - including listed ones - will repeat old and/or trash material. These days, only few channels will still show a nightly test pattern, but if some do, there is no good reason to exclude them, while including channels airing old/trash material at nights. PanchoS (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, the "24-hour" part was added because people had a tendency to add any television station that aired any news at all to the category, even broadcast stations that follow the typical broadcast "mostly entertainment programming but with 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. newscasts mixed in" model. But this category tree is meant for things like CNN, CBC News Network or BBC World, stations whose programming is all news, and not for every single station that airs any news at all. I'm not wedded to the "24-hour" part, if somebody has another alternative — nominator does have a point that some channels will only air news until midnight, and then run infomercials or a test pattern or the owner's ruminations on God and the Devil overnight, thus making them "18-hour" news channels instead of "24-hour" news channels — but the category name does have to explicitly clarify the distinction between "dedicated news channel" and "regular channel that happens to air a couple of hours of news within a schedule that's mostly not news", because it's not meant to include the latter. Oppose nomination as constituted, but I'm open to another alternative which explicitly maintains the necessary distinction if somebody's got one to offer. Bearcat (talk) 20:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions should we categorize channels by content at all? Can we always clearly distinguish news from entertainment? Does a channel have to provide news 100% of the time to be in this category, or at least 80% or what? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but some of the categories must need a lot of purging. I find it hard to believe that Pakistan manages to have sixteen 24-hour news channels. Al Jezeera is broadcast in UK, but is not a British news station. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment 24-hour television does not mean 24 hours of live or new programming, it means 24-hours of programming, unlike channels/stations/networks that sign off for a part of the day, which then air static or test patterns for some time; "All-news" would be channels that only air news (and perhaps infomercials/full-program-length commercials) regardless of the hours of programming -- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 07:11, 19 April 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:News television 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 to programmes/programs according to spelling in Category:Television programs by country:
– Fayenatic London 08:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Further 38 renamings of child categories including 6 outliers
Nominator's rationale: "Television news series" is a quite awkward term (I'd almost say neologism) that seems to be inspired by using the scheme set by Category:Television series by genre as a passepartout for all genres. "Television news series" isn't an acknowledged synonym per News program. I doubt that it is widely understood (at least not correctly) rather resonating with special interests series, Infotainment or even Category:Television news sitcoms.
Now the choice of "Television news shows" isn't obvious. While "Television news programmes‎" has some precedent (see Category:British television news programmes), and while "Television news programs" is most common on Google and the Library of Congress subject heading, we're trying to avoid words with spelling variants per WP:ENGVAR. I'm therefore proposing "Television news shows", which renders quite some Google hits including on Google books and which is broad enough to encompass Category:Current affairs shows and Breakfast television/morning shows.
Note that for now I'm not proposing a switch from using demonyms (like "French television news shows" or "Spanish television news shows") to country names (like "Television news shows of France" or "Television news shows of Spain") as I want to get the more obvious problem fixed first. --PanchoS (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: Note that this also avoids the ambiguity of "news television" which tends to refer only to dedicated news channels, while "television news" encompasses both programs on news channels and news programs on general-interest channels. It also brings the categories into line with parent Category:Television news. --PanchoS (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
News television series: Survey and discussion[edit]
  • Oppose, I don't see how there's a problem here that requires us to rearrange two words. There's no confusion here as to what the current category means, and I don't see why the proposed name is less awkward when it actually inserts the descriptive modifier "news" in the middle of the underlying noun "television series". One could then more easily confuse "television news" to be the subject of these shows, such as programming on E! or the TV Guide channel. I'm also perplexed by the arbitrary choice of "shows" when "series" is by far the dominant term used in our category structure, with "programmes" second. I'm not necessarily opposed to a proper rename, but I think this particular issue should have been discussed in a better and wider forum first to gauge support (including for the idea that there's even a problem to be solved here) and better alternatives. It seems at best like unnecessary work, and at worst would involve a loss of clarity. postdlf (talk) 17:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "in a better and wider forum?" CfD is the best and widest forum we have for discussing categories. --PanchoS (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* @Marcocapelle: I'm fine with your alternative proposal. Should I add it as a variant, or do you think it'd be better to restart the CfD? --PanchoS (talk) 23:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say just keep it the way it is now. People have the room here to (dis)agree with any of the proposed variants and to come up with other alternatives. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: It would be helpful if the nominator would add a full list of the alternative names.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object -- Calling everything a "show" is an Americanism. The categories with other names, such as the British one (which reflects British usage) should be kept. Where American usage is prevalent, I have no objection to renaming. However Category:Television news programmes with American subcats using "programs", as suggested by Marcocapelle is probably the best solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 17 April 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:Albums produced by MSTRKRFT[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:Albums produced by Masterkraft (producer). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The producer is known as Masterkraft and not MSTRKRFT.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the edit history, this category was originally located at Category:Albums produced by Masterkraft. The problem is that Masterkraft the producer does not actually have a Wikipedia article at all, but instead the title Masterkraft exists only as a redirect to MSTRKRFT the band — so the category was then erroneously albeit in good faith moved to this spelling. But the producer is a different person from the band, so this should never have happened at all. However, by the same token whereby a film director does not get a "Films directed by So-and-so" category regardless of how many of the films have articles already until he or she also has a WP:BLP which properly demonstrates and sources his or her own independent notability, a category for "Albums produced by Masterkraft" should not exist until Masterkraft actually has an article — because if this is moved back to the producer's correct spelling while that spelling still exists as a redirect to the band instead of an article about the producer, then in all likelihood somebody will eventually recommit the same error again. Delete, unless somebody is ready and willing to tackle an article about the producer. A proper article now exists about the producer, so rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I was able to find reliable sources about the producer and will create an article as soon as possible.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 18:28, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I created an article about Masterkraft and it can be accessed at Masterkraft (producer). I'd would appreciate a redirect of this category to its rightful title. Thanks in Advance.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 22:05, 19 April 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:Fictional Okhrana agents[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) 00:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an unpopulated category
There is only one article in this category, Karla, and it is miscategorized. According to that article, Karla was not a member of Okhrana but his father was. (The Okhrana were a spy agency in Czarist Russia.) No objection to recreating this later if we get up to 5 or so true articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Dietic as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Russia. – RevelationDirect (talk) 11:01, 16 April 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:Medical and health organizations by medical specialty[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: discussion merged to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 14#Categories:Medical and health organizations by medical condition/by medical specialty. – Fayenatic London 10:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Proposal to merge Category:Medical and health organizations by medical condition and Category:Medical and health organizations by medical specialty into one new category Rathfelder (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment (leaning against) - I started these categories, I suppose. (1) While there is arguably some overlap here, the two categories are not perfectly contiguous. "Medical condition" includes things like malaria, stuttering, obesity, not all of which are really considered "medical specialties". Similarly, "medical specialty" includes things that are definitely not medical conditions, like broad categories such as "pathology" and "radiology" and "bioethics" and "forensics" and "hospices". It still seems to me better to have two separate categories than just lump them all together. I'm not sure why, if lumping them together, we wouldn't just upmerge to Category:Medical and health organizations. (Except that I created these subcategories to usefully separate the various disease and professional specialty groups.) (2) If, however, the wisdom of the crowd votes to lump them together, then I would suggest a different name. First, I pause to note that you are spelling "organization" with English but "Specialised" with UK spelling. Second, "category:Specialized medical and health organizations" doesn't really explain that they're organized by specialty. Anyway, my 2c. --Lquilter (talk) 22:23, 16 April 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:Female Biography[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: move headnote to article and delete category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#EPONYMOUS category for a biographical dictionary, serving only to contain that dictionary's compiler and a master list of the women biographied in it -- so with just two entries, it's also a WP:SMALLCAT. Adding all the articles about all the individual women who are named in the list would not be appropriate, as it would not constitute a WP:DEFINING characteristic of those women -- and in practice, this has a tendency to get misused as a catchall for any biographical article about a woman, even if she isn't actually profiled in the eponymous work for which it was intended. Comparable categories for other biographical dictionaries (e.g. Category:Dictionary of Canadian Biography) exist in project space to contain worklists, not in article space to contain biographical articles about the people biographied in them. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the headnote to the list article then Delete. The whole subject is about the compiler of a 19th century biographical dictionary and those included in it. This is not enough to make up a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 17 April 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:Plant articles needing images[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:Wikipedia requested images of plants‎. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "need" doesn't describe what this category is used for. The articles in this category are requesting pictures; they don't require or need them. Anarchyte (work | talk) 10:18, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see that my comment above may not be clear: I oppose Category:Plant articles requesting images but would not oppose Category:Wikipedia requested images of plants. If the change is made, the preferred parameter in {{WikiProject Plants}} should be changed to |image-requested=yes. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:37, 17 April 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_April_16&oldid=1074815868"