Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 4 March 6 >

March 5[edit]

Category:Fox Family original programming[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 (Talk) 15:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article doesn't exist, but the redirect Fox Family Channel to the section History of Freeform (TV channel)#Fox Family does. The article says The Family Channel was renamed Fox Family Channel – though on-air promotions typically referred to the network as just "Fox Family". Seeing how Fox Family is a redirect to Fox family, the official name is a natural disambiguation here. Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:28, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2020 (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:Everton L.F.C. players[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 13#Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_5#Category:Everton_L.F.C._players

Category:Disney Revival[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective term that appears to be used only in certain corners of Disney fandom. Trivialist (talk) 11:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added some project banners on the talk page of this and the one below, which may cause them to appear on Alerts pages and therefore draw more participation. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete per nom (no upmerge appears necessary). Note: Disney Revival is a redirect to a page that doesn't use the word "revival". DexDor (talk) 06:59, 6 March 2020 (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:Disney Experimental Era[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective term that appears to be used only in certain corners of Disney fandom. Trivialist (talk) 11:06, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2020 (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:Dewey Groom[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/2020_March_13#Category:Dewey_Groom (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Minimal content here to require an eponymous category. Fails WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:40, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, There are 4 different things that can go into the category. The club, a record label are 2 of them. Karl Twist (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2020 (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:Germanophone Italian athletes[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. – Fayenatic London 16:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One's being a Germanophone Italian is not strongly connected to one's being a track and field athlete. Suggest to upmerge to the sportspeople parent. I believe there is a relevant connection between sports in general and Germanophone Italians, as the sports clubs in the region are organised in a Germanic fashion (e.g. Gertrud Bacher at SV Lana Raika). SFB 17:52, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is an old Wikipedia diatribe between "Track & Field" and "Athletics". Our SFB, staunch supporter of the first, seems not to want to surrender to the new international standards also adopted by World Athletics :) It is evident that Athletics is a Sport, as is Luge. Therefore it is clear that an athlete belongs to sportspeople in the same way that a luger belongs to it. --Kasper2006 (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that if the SFB proposal passed, the Category:Germanophone Italian track and field athletes would be needed, as it is for all other sports. But it would be a very strong contradiction because, for example, there exists Category:Athletes by nationality but not Category:Track and field athletes by nationality (which in fact is a redirect to the first). --Kasper2006 (talk) 18:17, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kasper2006: FYI - I used the phrase track and field athlete to make it clear to non-specialists that this is an athletics-based category, in case there was a mistake if people read "athletes" as a synonym for "sportspeople" in general. SFB 22:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: and what about this Category:Athletes by nationality? You can read: This category is for competitors within the sport of athletics, comprising track and field, road running, cross country running and racewalking. For track and field athletes specifically, please use Category:Track and field athletes by nationality. --Kasper2006 (talk) 10:59, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For sportspeople in general, please use Category:Sportspeople by nationality

@Carlossuarez46: but Category:Germanophone Italian people exists since 1 August 2011. How do we put it? :) --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:44, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. Language spoken is not the defining thing for these people; it's their sporting abilities that is defining. Plus it looks too much like Gramophone. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Laurel Lodged: I repeat. The Category:Germanophone Italian people has existed since 1 August 2011 and I certainly didn't create it. For your reasoning then all must be deleted. -- Kasper2006 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is inescapable. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Germanophone Italian people has existed since 1 August 2011 and I certainly didn't create it. For your reasoning then all must be deleted. --Kasper2006 (talk) 16:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And what would be wrong with that? For most people, the language one can speak is not defining. If that language defines a community and belonging to that community, then just possibly, but combine that with an occupation that is not language-specific (unlike, say, a writer) like sports it's absurd. Germanophone redirects to German language. In wiktionary, [1] Germanophone is simply German-speaking (no qualification as to mother tongue or level of fluency). So presumably John F. Kennedy could be so classified does that make sense or defines him? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this - and the whole Italian Germanophone tree. We have the usual ethnic descent categories for Italy, which would be a more appropriate place for native German speakers in Italy. Italy and Ukraine are the only two non-bilingual countries with these odd-looking categories, and they seem a very strange way of categorising people. Grutness...wha? 02:28, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we should only categorize people by language if they are have an occupation in which their language is verifiable, such as writers and actors, see the tree of Category:People by occupation and language‎. The tree of Category:People by first language‎ on the other hand should be entirely deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- However, this needs also to be the outcome for a number of siblings that are subcategories of the target. Nevertheless, some of the subcats are well-populated. I suspect that this is a paralleling Sportpeople from Trentino Alto Adige, which is the main German=speaking part of Italy. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all Looking through the category tree, I've not found a single article that supports the category in the body of the text. Per WP:CATVER this must be cited. And even if it was ref'd, this is not WP:DEFINING to the individual. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, NONE of the articles in that category had any mention, let alone a reference, to support the category. Per WP:CATVER and WP:BLPREMOVE, I've removed said category. If anyone has any WP:RS to support this information, please feel free to cite them before re-adding the category. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:04, 11 March 2020 (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/2020_March_5&oldid=1073192657"