Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 5

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

October 5[edit]

Category:Living Greyhawk[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. MER-C 18:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary tiny category TTN (talk) 21:00, 5 October 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:Films whose writer won the Best British Screenplay BAFTA Award[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. MER-C 18:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Possible rename. Poor phrasing to begin with; films aren't people. Also unclear...is the category supposed to be applied for films in cases where the writer of the film won the award? We have a few different BAFTA-related categories that I saw, but none with the name of the category structured in this manner. I might have specifically suggested a Rename instead, but I'm not sure what an appropriate Rename would look like. DonIago (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, if any, the writer should be categorized for the award, not the film. But even for the writer it is not obvious, per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Bryan Forbes is categorised as a BAFTA winner (correctly IMO as BAFTA is a significant award) as writer of The Angry Silence, and this is mentioned in the first line of the film's article. Oculi (talk) 19:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete cat. A list is far more sensible than a category here - then we can instantly see who the writers are. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, just delete the category. We don't need both and - as I said - a list makes more sense. Grutness...wha? 15:53, 6 October 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:Victoria Vikes[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. MER-C 18:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Significant cluster of eponymous categories for sports teams, without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant eponymous categories: other than the eponyms, the only other thing that was in any of these categories is the .png's of the teams' logos — which are already in the article's infoboxes anyway, so don't need categories to link them with the articles they're already used in, and aren't supposed to be in any categories that mix images with mainspace articles anyway, so I've already had to remove them as part of a massive cleanup of excessive image gallerying in the entire Category:U Sports tree. As always, the rule is not that every sports team automatically gets an eponymous category just because it exists: these are only warranted if there's a significantly greater volume of spinoff content than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per WP:C2F. (In fact WP:C2F says merge to parent categories, rather than delete, but in this case the articles are already in the parent categories.) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 6 October 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.

Years and decades in Punjabi cinema[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. MER-C 18:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: pointless WP:SMALLCATs. This entire set of categories contains only list articles which are already adequately categorised in Category:Lists of Punjabi films by year and Category:Lists of Punjabi films by decade. Each of the year categories contains only one article, and each of the decade categories contains only one list plus year categories.
These categories are also misconceived: Category:Punjabi cinema by year is a subcat of Category:Film by country and year, but the Punjab is not regarded as a country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 5 October 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:Azteca 7 affiliates[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 31#Category:Azteca 7 affiliates

Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax[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) 23:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category's self-justification that
infoboxes using Module:InfoboxImage with image syntax in the format |image=[[File:Example.jpg]] ... should be changed to the format |image=Example.jpg
is in direct contradiction to WP:IBI, which instructs that
If InfoboxImage is not yet fully implemented in the infobox you are using, the same alt=, upright=, title=, etc., parameters may be called using Extended image syntax ...
EEng 05:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edited to add: see change below) as a valid deprecated usage tracking category. I have added a note to the category page explaining how editors can request fixes for infoboxes that need additional parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you get that the syntax is deprecated? WP:IBI explicitly recommends it. EEng 18:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see: you changed IBI to make is sound like the syntax is deprecated. I changed it back. I also changed the text in the category itself to make it clear that the extended image syntax shouldn't be removed unlessn and until the appropriate parameters are available in the infobox itself to preserve what's presented to the reader. With that clarification in place I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. EEng 19:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit of a mystery to me. The category has been around as long as I have been editing WP on a regular basis (2013), so I assumed that it had been created after a consensus discussion. The best I can find after digging for a bit is this 2012 talk page archive, where there was an active effort to convert infoboxen to support "bare filenames". Before that, things get foggy. Some of the key players are still around, so they might be pingable from the category's talk page to find out if they know where any previous discussions happened. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look specifically at which editor actually created the category [4], then look at the last two bullet points of [5], and I think you'll know all you need to know. EEng 06:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to know where it was deprecated. This discussion leads to this discussion (which was just about implementing the category into the module, not actually on its deprecation - but this is what led to mass-tagging articles into the cat). The general bare usage was removed in edits like Special:Diff/536595680. It's not quite clear what discussion actually led to the deprecation of bare image usage, so some literature on the logic can be read. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    FWIW, looking at this I think it was probably Template_talk:Infobox_football_biography/Archive_6#Image. The logic of introducing the parameter, at the time, seems to be standardisation, so all templates work with both the extended syntax and the parameter syntax. But this doesn't seem to logically lead to deprecation of the extended syntax. I think deleting this maintenance category thus makes sense, because there doesn't seem to be any maintenance purpose for it, since there doesn't seem to be any reason to deprecate the old syntax, or to have any transclusions altered to change between one or the other. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am provisionally changing my position to Delete after going down these various rabbit holes and finding no discussion that actually deprecated this image syntax in infoboxes. I have placed notifications at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes and Module talk:InfoboxImage, where someone might be able to find the heretofore unfindable discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:40, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Have I not always said you are a gentleman and a scholar? EEng 04:00, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You can always tell a gentleman and a scholar. You just can't tell him much. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:01, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as tracking category. This really helps to find weird mistakes -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What "weird mistakes" are you talking about? Can you give me an example? * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are 87k pages in the category so he shouldn't have trouble finding one or two such examples. EEng 01:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Magioladitis, since you were involved in the creation of this category, you should be able to link to the consensus discussion that determined that extended image syntax in infoboxes should be deprecated. None of us have been able to find it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:11, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found an article where this caught something. This is an example of an image being displayed oversize because of the syntax used. MB 03:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant. The image is oversized because frameless was omitted. EEng 03:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This syntax caused the infobox image to be smaller (probably unintentionally) than the default for this infobox. The documentation for {{infobox motorcycle}} gives an explanation of why "plain" syntax is preferable for consistency. MB 03:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great for an infobox that includes all the necessary parameters such as upright and alt. For the rest, extended image syntax is needed. EEng 05:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karolin Ohlsson has an infobox image off-center because it is specified with "right". This can't happen if the File syntax is deprecated. MB 03:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ogri is another with an oversize image. MB 03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bobbie's Girl is a bit ambiguous. It has had "File" syntax, then an editor added |upright=1.0 which of course has no effect. I can't guess what the intent was, but this does illustrate what appears to be an unintentional conflict. MB 04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kearney Air Force Base is using the "File" syntax to force a caption for |ensign= that is apparently intended to left uncaptioned because the authors of {{Infobox military structure}} have not provided a parameter for one. MB 04:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is all completely ridiculous. Your reasoning seems to be that since that it's possible to make mistakes using the extended syntax, that justifies getting rid of it, despite the fact that it's often the only way to do certain quite desirable things, such as upright sizing and alt text. If you want to have categories catching specific issues such as omission of frameless, fine. Anyway, this isn't the place to have a discussion on deprecating the syntax; either you can show it's deprecated or (as seems to be the case) you can't. EEng 05:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I likewise see no consensus that this syntax is, or should be, actually "deprecated". * Pppery * it has begun... 19:08, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find that, whenever possible, it is better to try to get everything standardized rather than have two separate systems running around. If Module:InfoboxImage is not fully supported by a certain template, get the template updated and remove the old syntax. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're saying is that the syntax should be deprecated. Right now it's not. EEng 00:49, 20 October 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:Radio Free Roscoe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 31#Category:Radio Free Roscoe

Category:Life with Derek[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. MER-C 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a television series without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant an eponymous category. This just contains the eponym and a spinoff movie, and the only other thing we have that could be added is an episode list -- but a television series has to have a lot more than just two related pages before it needs one of these. Both of them are already linked in the main article's body text anyway, so no information will be lost. As always, every TV show does not always automatically get one of these just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 5 October 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.

Periodical people[edit]

Category:The Sunday Business Post people[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. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Business Post. This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is a Sunday publication only, and the category currently uses its former name. There is no distinction between publications here. Dimadick (talk) 15:19, 11 October 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:Focus people[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. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Focus (German magazine). This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 5 October 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:Cosmos (magazine) people[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. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Cosmos (Australian magazine). This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 5 October 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:Australian Geographic (magazine) people[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. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Australian Geographic. This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 5 October 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:Mojo people[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. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Mojo (magazine). This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 5 October 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:Country Life people[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. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Country Life (magazine). This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 5 October 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:Minneapolis Star-Tribune people[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. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is now at Star Tribune. This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 5 October 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:The Stranger people[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. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is at Category:The Stranger (newspaper) and the main article is The Stranger (newspaper). This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all - they do indeed qualify as speedies, but then opposed speedies become slower than normal. Oculi (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all, there is no obvious reason why any of these would be controversial, so WP:C2D applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To match main article. Dimadick (talk) 15:22, 11 October 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_October_5&oldid=1073192721"