Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 18 February 20 >

February 19[edit]

Category:1990s LGBT comedy 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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have trees subdividing LGBT-related television series by decade and by genre and by nationality -- but I find myself remarkably unconvinced that we need to further subcategorize them by intersecting decade with genre and/or nationality this way. These intersections are too narrow to be navigationally useful, and are "ghettoizing" these shows out of their most contextually relevant peer groupings. We do not need, for instance, to use the category system to completely segregate Will & Grace from Vicious and Queer as Folk US from Queer as Folk UK (or, for that matter, W&G from QAFUS and Vicious from QAFUK) — the appropriate by-country and by-decade and by-genre categories already exist as it is, so we don't need to completely isolate these shows from each other by filtering everything down to a series of triple intersections that prevent them from being found together even in the category criterion they share, when separate categories already exist for the things that are different about them. Bearcat (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these are deleted/merged is it worth keeping Category:British LGBT-related television series by decade and its various subcategories? I think the issues the nominator raises could also apply there. Dunarc (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. You're right, the same issues would apply — I just missed those when I was putting this batch together. Bearcat (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As both the American and British television series by decade categories have several subcategories by genre I think it would be useful to retain at least the main LGBT categories eg Category:1990s American LGBT-related television series and Category:1990s British LGBT-related television series, if not the subcategories by genre as well as nationality. But they could be made "Non-Diffusing" subcategories so that the shows would appear both in the main and LGBT series so avoiding "Ghettoisation." This is the approach of some women’s categories by century and occupation eg Category:20th-century American women writers, so women authors appear in both the "writers" category (or another general category) and the "womens writers" subcategory. PS: I suppose that adding the main categories (if adopted) would have to be done manually rather than by a bot? Hugo999 (talk) 12:32, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - making them non-diffusing would solve the issue of them being seen to be ghettoising. Some of the cats have only a small number of entries because they are new and haven't been populated yet. Jim Michael (talk) 13:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom - I really don't think we have enough articles to warrant such diversification. We recently had a CfD for Category:Gay-related television programs and the consensus of the discussion was that the category needed to be purged as it was more inclusionist than defining and this seems to be a big problem with the whole tree. If we were to purge these cats we'd find we simply do not need most of them. Fewer cats would provide more easier navigation. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:08, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem there was that some of the entries were insufficiently gay-related to be included. Some entries were removed on that basis. Descriptions can be put on the cats to make the inclusion criteria clear. Jim Michael (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I tried getting the inclusion criteria for that category made more clear, to no avail. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:37, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The current description on Gay-related television programs is quite clear, and in any case the issue is similar on all LGBT film & television cats. If there's a disagreement about whether or not to include a particular show, that can be discussed on the talk page of the article concerned. Jim Michael (talk) 10:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should be defining, not simply inclusionist, as was discussed at the CfD. The criteria for that category is inclusionist, not defining and needs amendment to fix this. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:10, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It says .... consistently and prominently, which means that it needs to be a major part of the show. Series such as Modern Family and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt aren't 'gay shows', but they're certainly gay-related. Jim Michael (talk) 11:54, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
More correctly it says consistently and prominently include one or more gay male characters, so the mere inclusion of a gay character, even if gay themes aren't addressed, provides for inclusion in the category. In fact, this is how the category was originally populated. The category creator grabbed a list of programs that included gay characters and added every one to the cat. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:06, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are very few TV shows which contain gay characters but which don't address gay themes. Brooklyn Nine-Nine is unusual in that a major character is openly gay and it's not an issue. Jim Michael (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the number of articles that were purged from that category I'd have to disagree. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many shows were added which only had very minor gay characters and/or very brief gay-related storylines and situations. Then the opposite was done in that shows which are very gay-related were removed, including The New Normal (in which the two main characters are a gay couple adopting a baby) and Gimme Gimme Gimme (in which one of the two main characters is a camp, openly gay man). Every episode of each of those two shows is strongly gay-related. In any case, that's a disagreement about the threshhold of inclusion, when the issue here is how many cats to have and how to (or not to) diffuse them. Jim Michael (talk) 08:44, 9 March 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:Levitic surnames[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 Category:Levitic surnames to Category:Levite surnames. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Levitic surnames to article Levite#Levite_surnames
Nominator's rationale: There is already a section at Levite#Levite_surnames. Zoupan 19:30, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is legitimate to have both a category and an article. This provides a mechanism for categorising a group of surnames. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename to Category:Levite surnames in order to align with the adjective in the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:52, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, with rename per Marcocapelle. Categories are not always automatically deleted just because lists also exist. Per WP:CLN, there are certainly some circumstances where a list is warranted but a category is not or vice versa, because the content satisfies the rules for one form of organization but not for the other — but there are also plenty of situations where a category and a list should coexist, if the content fulfills both sets of rules. So if somebody had a more substantive reason why a category shouldn't exist, I'd be willing to hear and consider it in good faith — but "there's a list" is not in and of itself a reason why a category shouldn't exist. Bearcat (talk) 19:21, 26 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:Game Maker 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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Category:GameMaker: Studio games already exists. Mika1h (talk) 16:45, 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.

Millennia in Upper Volta[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 all. There is clear agreement here to delete millennia categories for both Upper Volta and Burkina Faso, but that isn't possible 'cos the Burkina Faso categories have not been tagged, so I am closing as merge.
Pinging the participants, who may want to nominate the Burkina Faso categories for deletion: @Fayenatic london, Laurel Lodged, Marcocapelle, and Peterkingiron. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:09, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Millennia categories parenting a few decades are not useful. – Fayenatic London 10:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: if agreed, Template:2nd-millennium establishments in the Republic of Upper Volta will be obsolete and can be nominated for merger and deletion afterwards. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reluctantly. Would prefer delete. For a country that has existed for less than a century, "by century " classification is more than adequate. "By millennium" classifications are just a case of "keeping up with the Jones". Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom as a minimum, and also support delete per Laurel Lodged as an extension. Two millennia parenting two centuries are not useful either. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all, and salt -- Whether the old name or the current one is used the country has only existed in a recognisable form (even as a French colony for some 200 years, so that a millennium category is wholly unnecessary. Support, if kept -- The practice is that categories for renamed countries are parented to the category for their present name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 23 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.

Millennia in Hamburg[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This part of the hierarchy is not useful for navigation. The contents are adequately parented in 19th century in Germany, Establishments in Germany etc. We neither have nor want a hierarchy of millennia by city. – Fayenatic London 08:38, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note: the parameter "2nd" in the template on the page Category:19th-century establishments in Hamburg is optional; to remove the category from the parent Category:2nd-millennium establishments in Hamburg, simply delete that parameter. – Fayenatic London 09:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if any further diffusion of the history of Hamburg is needed beyond the 19th, 20th and 21st century that we currently have, then a further diffusion by earlier centuries would make more sense than a catch-all category for the whole 2nd millennium. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe these were created before the standard template was amended to allow millennia to be an optional parameter. As such I have no objection to deletion of the nominated categories. Tim! (talk) 17:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete the millennium categories are a waste of space: I do not recall when Hamburg was founded, but it is unlikely to have even 20 century categories, which makes millennia unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 23 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:Coalition of Refugee Associations in the Republic of Serbia 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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, very unlikely to have more. No main article exists. Zoupan 03:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category:Serbian politicians by party should have a full set of Serbian politicians whose party is known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while currently the convention is to have every politician categorized by political party (if possible), User:Zoupan addresses the question if we should keep doing this for very small or short-lived parties with hardly any notable politicians. That is a fair question. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: Yes, it's a fair question. My answer is yes, keep them, as part of the history of political parties in that country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In many countries people switch and jump parties a lot. Some parties at times essentially exist to advance one candidate, and then fall apart. Just because someone, somewhere organizes a party, does not make it default something that people are worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 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:Vojvodina's 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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, very unlikely to have more. No notability whatsoever. Zoupan 03:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category:Serbian politicians by party should have a full set of Serbian politicians whose party is known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In many countries people switch and jump parties a lot. Some parties at times essentially exist to advance one candidate, and then fall apart. Just because someone, somewhere organizes a party, does not make it default something that people are worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Firstly, for the sake of completion, and secondly because it is an active party which has won a seat in the past, so "very unlikely to have more articles" is questionable. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 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:Together for Šumadija 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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defunct party. Only one article, very unlikely to have more. Zoupan 03:15, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 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:Roma 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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article since creation. Very unlikely to have more. Zoupan 03:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category:Serbian politicians by party should have a full set of Serbian politicians whose party is known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In many countries people switch and jump parties a lot. Some parties at times essentially exist to advance one candidate, and then fall apart. Just because someone, somewhere organizes a party, does not make it default something that people are worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Firstly, for the sake of completion, and secondly because it is an active party which has won a seat in the past, so "very unlikely to have more articles" is questionable. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 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:Roma Union of Serbia 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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article since creation. Very unlikely to have more. Zoupan 03:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If this categ is simply deleted, it will remove Rajko Đurić entirely from Category:Serbian politicians, which is silly. Merger would be better than deletion.
    However, I think it is helpful to have all politicians of the modern era categorised by party, and keep the category per WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:21, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Obviously, the biography should stay at Serbian politicians, so yes, merger. I don't see the purpose of having 1-article-categories.--Zoupan 04:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zoupan: the purpose is that Category:Serbian politicians by party should have a full set of Serbian politicians whose party is known. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete In many countries people switch and jump parties a lot. Some parties at times essentially exist to advance one candidate, and then fall apart. Just because someone, somewhere organizes a party, does not make it default something that people are worth categorizing by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose. Firstly, for the sake of completion, and secondly because it is an active party which has won a seat in the past, so "very unlikely to have more articles" is questionable - especially since there is a new leader for the party (currently redlinked) who has the chance of also entering parliament. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 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:Procurement practices[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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 29#Category:Procurement practices. ℯxplicit 06:13, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it is not clear how this category distinguishes itself from its parent category, the large amount of articles in the parent category also have a very practical character. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have notified WikiProject Business.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:44, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_19&oldid=871693609"