Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 28 November 30 >

November 29[edit]

Category:Buddy TV shows[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. Timrollpickering 10:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vaguely described (Has no WP article) category. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. No definition of what is included in the category and it seems to include articles on film genres. Dimadick (talk) 07:05, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Buddy TV" isn't a thing, but judging by what's been selected for inclusion I can see that the intended target is the buddy cop genre. But that doesn't encompass every single show that happens to have a duo at its centre — there are shows here that aren't even about cops at all (Moonlighting), and shows that don't fit the "mismatched police partners who hate each other at first but become friends by working together" part of the buddy cop premise (CHiPs). Just because a show happens to focus on a crime fighting duo instead of a solo act doesn't automatically make it buddy-cop. Bearcat (talk) 00:47, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague --Lenticel (talk) 05:59, 3 December 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:Sexual abuse victims activists[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. Timrollpickering 10:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per Category:Child crime victim advocates. This was recommended at Category talk:Sexual abuse victims activists ten years ago, so it is probably time to rename. wumbolo ^^^ 18:38, 29 November 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:Timelines of media[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is either named incorrectly or used incorrectly. it contains multiple sets of categories for entries that are not timelines at all, but that are simply conventional articles on topics that pertain to a specific year. for example, Category:2015_comics_endings contains individual entries for individual comics that ended in 2015, not timelines for 2015, but it is a sub-category of Category:Timelines of media. Sm8900 (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by nom. I'm actually not even sure what is the correct parent categry to replace or merge this category with. Category: Mass media by period seems like it might be one possible or viable alternative, based on its current scope . however, i am open to suggestions on which parent category might be best to merge this category with. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn. Never mind, I went in and corrected them manually, myself. you're welcome. :-) --Sm8900 (talk) 18:16, 29 November 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:Synod of Bishops (Catholic)[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. Timrollpickering 10:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Synod of Bishops in the Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The target's capitalisation appears to differ from the intent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, let's wait until the RM regarding the article name is closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:06, 30 November 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:Ranji Trophy Cricketers[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't add categories to cricketers for each domestic competition they play in, just the teams they represent. As far as I know, this is the same across other sports too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely unnecessary category. We categorise players by teams played for, not competitions played in. StickyWicket (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Note that Ranji has more than 80 tournaments. Many noted players have passed away and information about their state is unknown. Ranji Trophy being an Important part of their career. Moreover Ranji also has significance in the Independence struggle of India. Making note of player who participated in the Independence struggle. (Purplecart (talk) 08:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]
If it's an Important part of their career then mention it in the article text. DexDor (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't decide categories because of namesakes importance in a historial event. StickyWicket (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The reason made for the deletion of the article is valid but I don't know if all the Ranji teams have their own cricketers list page. Maybe there are pages for major teams like Bombay, Tamil Nadu or Hyderabad which were maintained regularly by some editors. I can support to delete if we can maintain pages for all the current 37 teams and former ~10 teams. Until then, I feel it's better to keep. Sa Ga Vaj 23:41, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all Ranji teams (including the nine new Ranji sides for 2018/19) are covered by Category:Players in Indian domestic cricket by team - which includes non-Ranji teams dating back to the 1890s. It's totally pointless to categorise players by team, then by competition, surely this goes against WP:OVERCAT? With cricketers it goes: nationality (Category:Fooianstan cricketers) → domestic team played for (Category:Fooian Province cricketers) - then additional categories if they have played one of the three international formats (i.e. Fooianstan Test cricketers). In regards to Indian cricketers, a lot of the articles were created by Bobo192 in the early days and he categorised them all. Any Indian cricketer created since then will have their category assigned when the page is created, which is something Lugnuts is doing a great job on at the moment. StickyWicket (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Dee03 14:16, 1 December 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:Locations based on Doctor Who[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. Timrollpickering 10:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per WP:SMALLCAT, this category only has one member and has no realistic potential for growth beyond a small number. The name is also not very descriptive. Bondegezou (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Just as "descriptive" (actually, the term is "identical") as Category:Works based on Doctor Who and its ten similar-named categories. Can the nominator suggest an alternate category to add the page to, or are they just here to delete? -- AlexTW 14:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point of WP:SMALLCAT is to avoid over-categorisation. The article can just be in a higher categorisation, like Category:Doctor Who. The rationale of categories in Wikipedia is to aid navigation, so there is no value in a category with only one thing in it. I can't think of anything else that would go in this category. It seems unlikely that anything new is going to come along. Ergo, SMALLCAT applies. As for the name, unlike the other examples you give, the one thing in this category, 3325 TARDIS, is an asteroid in space, it is not a thing that was made based on Doctor Who. Bondegezou (talk) 15:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the one page in the category is not about something based on the series; only its name is based on it. That article is already well categorized. This cat doesn't form part of a locations-based-on category structure. DexDor (talk) 17:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete horrific title, a correctly-named category "Asteroids named after Doctor Who terminology" would still be a small cat. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:53, 29 November 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:Populated coastal places on Martha's Vineyard[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:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous: Martha's Vineyard is an island; all the towns on it are populated coastal places. Eric talk 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Chilmark is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Tisbury is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous: Martha's Vineyard is an island, every town on it is coastal. Eric talk 13:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous: Martha's Vineyard is an island, every town on it is coastal. Eric talk 13:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Gosnold is itself a populated coastal town that comprises a chain of small islands. Eric talk 13:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - these should all be upmerges, not deletes. Certainly to Category:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts or some subcat thereof. These provide fine examples of the hazards mentioned by BHG only yesterday of placing whole categories as subcats rather than their articles as members. Boston is a populated coastal place; Category:Boston, a topic category, contains all manner of non-places. Oculi (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed that just now, for these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion to commenters: I would encourage editors commenting here to familiarize themselves with the geography of place names concerned: map here. These cats are as redundant as having one called Iron towers completed by Gustave Eiffel in Paris in 1889. I see them as nothing but make-work edit-count inflators. Eric talk 12:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean we shouldn't categorize villages as populated coastal places at all (i.e. limit it to towns), or do you mean we shouldn't categorize villages on an island as populated coastal places (i.e. limit it to places ashore)? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle: Hi Marco- I think Category:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts placed on a coastal town's article should suffice. (Who knows what the motivation for populated was, but that's another discussion; it would be difficult to define the unpopulated coastal "places" in Massachusetts). Chilmark, Tisbury, and Gosnold are three of the six towns on Martha's Vineyard, and all are coastal; we don't need to further categorize "places" within each of these small towns as coastal. "Up-Island" and "Down-Island" are local terms for sections of Martha's Vineyard; those cats are utterly unnecessary. Eric talk 23:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Populated coastal places in Gosnold, Massachusetts should definitely be deleted though, as it contains articles about islands, rather than articles about populated places. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marco, that cat you added back to the Wellfleet article was my first candidate for deletion. All the towns on the Outer Cape are coastal. There is no Cape Cod town that is not coastal (see this map). Am I missing something here? Eric talk 15:28, 2 December 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:Coastal towns in Massachusetts[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:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; all towns in this county are coastal. Eric talk 13:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category refers to something that does not exist; all towns in this county are coastal, and it has no cities. Eric talk 13:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; all towns on Cape Cod are coastal. Eric talk 13:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Chatham is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Dennis is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Falmouth is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Harwich is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Sandwich is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Mashpee is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Yarmouth is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grouped. Since the same rationale applies in each of the 12 cases, I have grouped the 12 nominations together so that the same discussion is not repeated 12 times. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl: Good idea, thanks, I wasn't sure how to present these. I did a bit of re-grouping by geography. Eric talk 13:29, 30 November 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:Libraries in Copley Square[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. Timrollpickering 10:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; there is only one library in Copley Square. Eric talk 13:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good grief! I can't believe that this category exists, and that a discussion to remove it is needed. --A really paranoid android (talk) 03:46, 5 December 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:Whig (British political party) MPs[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. Timrollpickering 10:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. The British Whigs were the only Whigs to have MPs and Lords. The only other Whig parties with seats in their national legislatures were the Whig Party (United States) and the Liberian True Whig Party, who had Representatives and Senators. Opera hat (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you direct me to the convention? (Really, I seriously want to understand the rationale, and I haven't been able to find any guideline to support it.) Opera hat (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCCAT just says that standard article naming conventions apply, and WP:NCGAL says that "care should be taken to avoid convoluted or artificial constructions". I'm struggling to think of anything more convoluted and artificial than these category titles. Opera hat (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between these categories and Category:Whig Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom? Opera hat (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to match the article - it's not a needless disambiguator, as there are/were multiple Whig parties. SportingFlyer talk 21:43, 3 December 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:Whig (British political 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: Keep. Timrollpickering 10:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NCDAB. Natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. Opera hat (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as it is, to match the main article. Otherwise it appears ambiguous. Sionk (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is the proposed title ambiguous? Opera hat (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. Whig politicians who are British? That's the normal interpreation of the adjective 'British'. Sionk (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But "Whig politicians who are British" is exactly what they are. In fact it's probably a more accurate description than the current one, as the Whig/Tory divide predated the modern concept of political parties. Opera hat (talk) 23:04, 3 December 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:Former populated places in Palestine (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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Former populated places in Palestine (region). Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is classified within the tree of category:Former populated places by country, which should refer to the modern country State of Palestine (a UN-observer status state since 2013) and not the geographical area Palestine (region). Currently, this is the only category of a region within the by country tree. Most of the articles in this cat are already correctly classified, while the few which are located in modern Israel can be easily recategoried. This proposal will come in line with previous procedures to differentiate Palestine region and the modern State of Palestine, such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28#Economy of Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 07:43, 29 November 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.

Timeline categories[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last days User:Sm8900 created a bunch of new categories for timelines:

I propose to delete all remaining categories except the boats as they have very large overlap to established categories like Category:Years in science, Category:2018/Category:2018-related lists, Category:Years, Category:2018 in sports and so on. This parallel structure is a case of mostly overlapping categories. See also the previous discussion on Category talk:2018-related timelines and in the linked deletion pages. --mfb (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • STRONG KEEP. With respect, there is no basis to this proposal. all of these categories have a clear scope and a clear purpose. they have been accepted by multiple users. there is no basis for a wholesale proposal like this, including as it does multiple categories, each with their own scope, role, purpose, and reason for being. For example, I note that the central category Category: Timelines by year and Category: 2018-related timelines are included here, even though these have already been referred to in other discussions elsewhere as being totally valid for use. their inclusion as just one component makes this whole proposal rather overtly unwieldy.
in regards to categories above for timelines on specific topical areas, the category Category:Culture-related timelines by year, for example, is for timelines that cover one specific year. the Category:Culture-related timelines includes multiple timelines that span centuries, rather than a single year.
Similarly, Category:Media timelines by year is for timelines that are for one specific year. Category:Timelines_of_media is totally different in scope, purpose, and role. it includes multiple timelines that span centuries, rather than a single year. also, it is a parent category, containing entire categories of entries on media, most of which are not timelines but which are entries that each focus on a single topic that relates to a specific year. I have submitted my own nomination on merging this category, higher up on this page, in regards to this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:35, 29 Novemberu 2018 (UTC)
  • Procedural comment, it is currently not possible to verify that the rationale for nomination really applies to all these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I added equivalent existing categories in the list above. --mfb (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. hi all. I have just created Category: Decades in media as well. should we add that to this nomination for deletion as well? just noting that. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I just think the timeline structure as category system parallel to the existing one shouldn't exist. --mfb (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, well I do appreciate your courteous reply. I was just joking in my comment immediately above. I am willing to discuss this with you in a forthright manner. I do respect your input.
basically, I do not consider the timelines structure to be superfluous or merely an unnecessary parallel to the list structure. the categories for lists and the categories for timelines are quite distinct, as they are based on specific, clear, straightforward guidelines. that is the main dynamic for categories. lists and timelines are not the same thing, and are quite distinct,regardless of any occasional similarities; that's the point of having a term like "timeline" in the first place. thanks for your comment above. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see something fundamentally wrong with these categories. We allow Category:Timelines and the nominated categories are a further diffusion of that head category. But some of the categories need subcategorization, e.g. Category:Culture-related timelines by year should contain Category:Classical music timelines by year and siblings, rather than having articles directly in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Category:Timelines is empty and should stay empty. The existing categories cover the timelines already, this parallel structure where nearly the same selection of articles is covered is not necessary and just makes it harder to find the right categories. --mfb (talk) 21:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanks yes, as you note, there is a clear distinction. and also, the category Category:Years in transport is valid as category for these, since it is not confined merely to timelines, or lists. based on your suggestion above, I have added it. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
also the very existence of timelines articles as a structure in the first place creates the si qua non for having these as a general item. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP FOR ITEM ABOVE. (note; second bolded reply by this user on this CfD.) Please note, Category:2018-related sports lists is also not a category for timelines anyway. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that this is the same user as the first reply. --mfb (talk) 23:06, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, fair point; will edit my comment above. --Sm8900 (talk) 01:14, 5 December 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 schedules[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category that was emptied out of process, with all contents evacuated to Category:Television programming, without any locatable evidence that a proper consensus was pursued or established for that. The contents aren't actually television programs, however, but are either schedule grids, or television listings magazines and EPG channels. So I've repopulated it and am listing it for discussion accordingly -- an alternate name and/or a split between the grids and the magazines might very well be appropriate, and I don't have any strong objection if consensus does support upmerging some of the content to "Television programming" (this is easier to defend for the grids than it is for the magazines), but arbitrarily emptying it was not the appropriate process. Just to be clear, this is strictly a procedural listing, as under the circumstances I felt it appropriate to test for consensus over whether it's desired or not — however, other than the need to undo another editor's arbitrary action I don't have a particularly strong opinion of my own one way or another. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 29 November 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:Weekly television shows[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. Timrollpickering 10:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Effectively unmaintainable categories, which fortunately haven't seen an actual attempt at population yet beyond one show each. Very nearly every single television program in existence has aired either weekly or daily, or even both in the case of a sitcom that endures in off-network strip syndication or a reality show that runs once a week in the competition phase before running every day in the week of the finals — and only a very small minority of shows run less frequently than once a week. So frequency of scheduling isn't a useful point of categorization for television shows, since the vast majority of all shows that have ever existed at all would have to be filed in one category or the other and a non-trivial number of shows would have to be filed in both. "Weekday events" will also be a completely empty category if "weekday television shows" goes, and a category of unmaintanably large potential if it were repurposed in another way. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. as per nomination. --Sm8900 (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, far too general for any meaningful purpose. Sionk (talk) 22:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 07:50, 30 November 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_November_29&oldid=1073191770"