Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 12

February 12

Category:Towns in Andhra Pradesh by district

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 11:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:Towns in Andhra Pradesh by district to Category:Cities and towns in Andhra Pradesh

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer, given the limited amount of content of the parent (target) category. None of the other Indian states has a category like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Merge we do not need this level of holding category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• Merge Unnecessary.Shyamsunder (talk) 21:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Monarchs by religion

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Monarchs by religion
• Propose deleting Category:Bahá'í monarchs
• Propose deleting Category:Buddhist monarchs‎
• Propose merging Category:Indonesian Buddhist monarchs‎ to Category:Indonesian Buddhists‎ and Category:Indonesian monarchs‎
• Propose deleting Category:Christian monarchs‎
• Propose deleting Category:Chalcedonian Christian monarchs‎

rest of similar categories

Propose deleting Category:Orthodox monarchs‎ Propose deleting Category:Protestant monarchs‎ Propose deleting Category:Roman Catholic monarchs‎ Propose deleting Category:Non-Chalcedonian Christian monarchs‎‎ Propose deleting Category:Hindu monarchs‎ Propose merging Category:Indonesian Hindu monarchs‎ to Category:Indonesian Hindus‎ and Category:Indonesian monarchs‎ Propose deleting Category:Jain monarchs‎ Propose deleting Category:Jain queens‎ Propose deleting Category:Muslim monarchs‎ Propose deleting Category:Muslim rulers‎ Propose deleting Category:Shia Muslim monarchs‎ Propose deleting Category:Zoroastrian dynasties and rulers‎

Nominator's rationale: delete as a trivial intersection between one's religion and one's occupation. However at the same time I would propose to leave the possibility open to create new categories Category:Monarchs promoting fooian religion or Category:Monarchs promoting persecution of fooian religion because some monarchs have been using their royal power to actively promote their own religion at the cost of other religions. This is a follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. This not a "trivial" intersection, as the nominator bizarrely claims. Religion is actually a defining characteristic of any monarchy.
  Most monarchies have been based on the notion of the divine right of kings. The claim is that the monarch is chosen by God and derives their authority from God, and most monarchs have used the power to actively uphold that religion. A commitment to that religion is usually part of their coronation oath; it's a core duty, not just something which some of them they may decide to do. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. These are defining categories, not a trivial intersection. The description of monarchy as merely an occupation is also strange. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. While in general I'd support removing "officeholder × religion" categories, I think that religion has such a major role to play in so many historical monarchies (most monarchies sought religious justification/validation/approval for their power, and most monarchies promoted some favoured religion and very often persecuted other religions), that that general principle doesn't apply in this case. SJK (talk) 05:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose from what I know of the Indonesian examples, the anthropological and political dimensions to identification with a particular belief, considering the changes in dominance of any one religion in any one region of the country that have occurred in 2000 years of recorded history, is a valid and important identifier to place the monarch in whatever context available from limited evidence available. As to whether there is any use and promotion of a belief by any of the historically ascribed monarchs is highly unlikely something that can be verified or denied, due to the nature of the historical record, as a consequence anything to do with promotion or promotion of persecution on historical Indonesian monarchs would be wrong, as there is no basis of proof of such behaviour that could be acceptably claimed. JarrahTree 11:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with your !vote, but your comment that we can't historically verify the promotion by Indonesian monarchs of particular religions seems wrong to me. There are inscriptions on Buddhist statutes of Adityawarman's name, which suggests he bears some responsibility for the statutes existence (most likely, he funded/commissioned them). That is a form of "promotion" of Buddhism. SJK (talk)
• Oppose -- A monarch historically is likely to have in some degree imposed his religion on his subjects. It is thus highly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Monarchs have been and are often tied to specific religions and take part in their religion's traditions and governance (Modern day examples include Co-Prince of Andorra, the Queen of England, the Prince and Grand Master of the Order of Malta, the Emperor of Japan, the King of Saudi Arabia, etc. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 23:06, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Monarchy is strongly associated with religion, often more so than mere priesthood. Monarchs have been seen as living gods, candidates for deification, high priests or heads of various religions, and as responsible for enforcing their religion on others. The notion that religion is irrelevant is frankly bizarre. Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose Per above arguments, monarchs are often associated with religions, and in history one often sees that when a monarch converted or changed religion all of there subjects usually converted or changed as well. I do however believe that Category:Indonesian Buddhist monarchs‎ should be merged with Category:Buddhist monarchs‎ per WP:NARROWCAT. Cheers Inter&anthro (talk) 23:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, religion has always been instrumental in the monarchy.--Zoupan 13:29, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

---

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.

Kosovar or Kosovan people

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: option A, i.e. use "Kosovan". – Fayenatic London 20:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Propose renaming

• either Option A

• or Option B

Nominator's rationale: Category:Kosovar people and 148 of its subcats use the demonym "Kosovar". I found a few outliers using "Kosovan", and nominated them at WP:CFD/S for speedy renaming. That was challenged by two editors, who said that "Kosovan" was the preferred usage, and that it was the "Kosovar" categories which should be renamed.

I don't known enough about this to have a view either way. I just want to see consistency, so this nomination contains two options:

• Option A would standardise all the categs as "Kosovan"
• Option B would standardise all the categs as "Kosovar"

Pinging Mondiad andGood Ol’factory, who objected to the speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Copy of speedy discussion

Category:Kosovan dramatists and playwrights to Category:Kosovar dramatists and playwrights – C2C. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Category:Kosovan essayists to Category:Kosovar essayists Category:Kosovan ethnographers to Category:Kosovar ethnographers: Oppose - Kosov(an) as per proper English. We have categories with both versions Kosovan and Kosovar as well, but Kosovan is more English native word. (I.e. Kosovan Passport, Kosovan parliamentary election, 2014, etc). It would be great if we move all categories "Kosovar..." -> "Kosovan...", not the other way around.--Mondiad (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) More and more, "Kosovar" is a reference to the ethnicity (ethnic Albanians), while "Kosovan" is the more inclusive term for the nationality. I'm not sure how well accepted the distinction is at this stage, but maybe it's time to again consider renaming Category:Kosovar people. At minimum, a good argument could be made that "Kosovar" is the more ambiguous option, in that it can refer to a nationality and an ethnicity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC) @Good Ol’factory+Mondiad: my only concern here is consistency, and I don't know much about the topic. You two both make a good case for a renaming in the other direction, which wouldn't be speediable ... so if I do a group nom of Kosovar→Kosovan people categories, and ping you both, would you be kind enough to expand at CFD on your explanations here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Sure, just ping me after you do the nomination.--Mondiad (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2016 (UTC) OK. I would be fine with this rename going through and then a larger nomination for all the Kosovar categories, but however you want to proceed is probably OK ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note: Categories all tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • WikiProject Kosovo has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Kosovar or Kosovan: Survey and discussion

• Comment: Not that simple. Compare "Kosovo educators", "Kosovo Romani", "Kosovo elections", etc. with the two, same strings. Similar case with "Lesotho politicians".--Zoupan 22:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Reply @Zoupan: It is not clear what point you are trying to make. Are you saying that we should use "Kosovo" as the adjective?
    Please expand a little more.
    BTW, the example of "Kosovo elections" seems to me to misplaced. The std format for election categories is "elections in Foo", so we have Category:Elections in Kosovo, with the head article Elections in Kosovo. All the other articles in that category and its subcats use the format "Koovo foo elections": Kosovan local elections, 2007, Kosovan parliamentary election, 2004, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The point I am making is that Kosovo is the predominantly used adjective. Isn't this quite obvious?--Zoupan 03:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No, that was not at all clear from your first comment. And I still don't see the evidence to support your claim. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• • Comment - I see Zoupan is proposing "Kosovo" instead of "Kosovan" or "Kosovar" - a similar renaming proposal was done here Talk:Kosovan local elections, 2013#Requested move and was rejected in favor of "Kosovan" over "Kosovo". I think using "Kosovo" instead of the two options we are discussing is out of scope, unless there is a real rationale given.--Mondiad (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Kosovo is not at all out of scope, the rationale being that it is used predominantly as the adjective.--Zoupan 03:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not opposing the Category:Kosovo people format by default, but you have to elaborate a little more on it. I agree that it is used as an adjective. But same way as "Kosovan" is not entirely problem-free as may be opposed by Serbian side, diagonally, "Kosovo" also may be opposed by those who promote Kosovo's independence. --Mondiad (talk) 14:25, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Maybe this should be done as an RfC on the revelant project page and then go for the CfD after a consensus is reached. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• There is an automatic alert to the project page already, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note. I have just found 2009 August_ 5#Category:Kosovan_people, which merged it to Category:Kosovar people. The nominator in that discussion was Good Ol’factory, who opposed the recent speedy nomination to change a few outliers to Kosovar.
  Situations can change, and editors can learn more about a topic, but it would be helpful if GO could explain what has happened in the last 6 years to change their mind. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. At the end of the day, I am OK with either "Kosovar" or "Kosovan" to describe the nationality. Consistency within the tree is important to me. I did not oppose the speedy renames made by BrownHairedGirl in this case, but I did make observations that (1) "Kosovan" is becoming more commonly used in sources that I read, and (2) "Kosovar" has the potential to be more ambiguous than "Kosovan", since "Kosovar" typically refers to people from Kosovo who are ethnic Albanians. OTOH, as I stated six years ago, "a person from Serbia might suggest that 'Kosovan' is not neutral, because it presupposes the existence of a nationality that is separate from that of being a citizen of Serbia. I suspect whether one supports 'Kosovar' or 'Kosovan' can have a lot to do with how one views the unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo." In short, I can see benefits and drawbacks for both, but would be happy to support either if applied consistently. What's changed for me w.r.t. this topic in the past six years?—nothing really, except that I think "Kosovan" has become more commonly used (or at least I have begun to encounter it more and more even if not increasing in popularity). And I suppose Serbia has softened ever so slightly on the Kosovo independence issue, and it has become a bit more of a fait accompli to most the rest of the world. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:12, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Thanks muchly for that detailed explanation, Good Ol’factory. These nuances are important in places still recovering from recent conflict. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:21, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment - I support "Kosovan" over "Kosovar" as more neutral, sticking to English language, as less ambiguous. As it was stated already, both version can be found within or out of wikipedia. I don't think that "Kosovan" gives more "independence" regarding Kosovo-Serbia relations given the current situation and development. A native English speaker can tell which term applies best linguistically - I will distance myself here. As Good Ol’factory mentions, use of "Kosovan" is increasing lately and as per common sense it should be reflected in wikipedia. I am not sure how the term "Kosovar" was originally brought, but as an Albanian I can verify that Kosovar is the term used in Albanian and it means "from Kosovo", automatically implying "Albanian from Kosovo" (instead, an ethnic Serbian would be just Serbian no matter where he/she is from). Therefore the use of "Kosovar" is, at least partly, ambiguous. --Mondiad (talk) 02:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
• Question If I understand things correctly, Kosovan appears to be a bit more neutral and a bit more in line with current usage, but is still not entirely problem-free. So is this a case where we should avoid these demonyms, and adopt the format "People from Kosovo" as was done with Category:People from Northern Ireland back in January 2009?
  That solution generated some heated opposition at the time, but in the 7 years since then it has been stable and AFAICS uncontroversial. Not for the first time, I am wondering why en.wp persists in using demonyms in any category names. Commons doesn't use them and de.wp doesn't use them. A significant number of the demonyms raise issues of neutrality, and many of them create ambiguity. I think that the Commons solution of "People from X"/"Fooers from X" would avoid a lot of headaches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:40, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I would oppose Category:People from Kosovo. In general, I prefer the demonym style in all cases, for a number of reasons. An important one is that there are many people who are FOOers, either by nationality or ethnicity, who are not really "from FOO". In many cases, they may have never set foot in FOO. This is the case in many cases since much of the world's nationalities are a matter of jus sanguinis rather than place of birth. I never understood why Category:People from Northern Ireland was superior to Category:Northern Ireland people since the default format is "FOOian people" or "FOO people". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Your proposal of Category:Northern Ireland people came late in that discussion, but I don't think it would have helped much. The noun-as-adjective is an improvement on the demonym, but it still carries adjectival problem of implying something about identity, which is one the issues in dispute in Norrn Iron and in many other places. And frankly, noun-as-adjective is ugly.
      Anyway, the current solution has been stable for 7 years (and AFAIK uncontroversial), which is quite a good achievement for Norrn Iron.
      The problem is that the demonym style's conflation of geography/nationality/ethnicity is what leads to such tangles, because in so many cases there is no demonym which neutrally describes the shared attribute we seek to capture. We already have Category:People by ethnicity, and I suggest that we would do much better to use it for ethnicity and to use a simple descriptive phase for geography and/or nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Well, ugliness is frankly 100% subjective, and not terribly convincing. I personally find "People from FOO" to be ugly when all other nationalities use the other form. We use noun as adjective in many other nationality categories, and we should have followed here for consistency' sake—especially since it's meaning is essentially equivalent to "People from Northern Ireland" for all but the hypersensitive. (Anyone who thinks otherwise doesn't really understand the grammatical meaning of nouns as adjectives.) It was an unfortunate blunder, from my perspective, and I would certainly oppose any move to expand it further. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
        • GO, the reality of divided societies with a recent history of conflict is that issues of terminology are hugely significant, even down to small nuances. I am wary of people with the privilege of living outside those situations labelling the people involved as hypersensitive.
          In that case it was quite simple to devise a simple neutral format which has proven durable. The "people from foo" format is used for squillions of sub-national geographical entities, so if the Norrn Iron example appears ugly, I hope you avert your eyes from the tens of thousands of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
          • I meant that it was ugly in the context of the head categories of Category:People by nationality, not in the context of the tens of thousands of subcategories. Perhaps it is not to be considered a head category of that, however (it isn't a direct subcategory right now, though I think it has been in the past). As for hypersensitivity, I have yet to meet or discuss the issue with anyone who would be ok with Category:People from Northern Ireland who would not be ok with Category:Northern Ireland people. (You may be the one exception, though I don't know your actual view on the matter.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment. Since there has not been that many participants in this discussion so far, I'm happy to give option A a boost and formally support "Kosovan". It's not a perfect solution and I can see problems with it, but I think its benefits—combined with the ambiguity drawbacks of "Kosovar"—make it slightly preferrable to option B. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:37, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
• Why is "Kosovar" not treated the same as "Serbian" or "Croatian", i.e. a demonym that may refer to both a people from a place and a people of specific ethnic origin? If the disambiguation page clearly treats "Kosovar X-people" as an acceptable term, why would categorization have to steer clear of it? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Presently, that's exactly how it's treated in WP categorization. But unlike Serbian and Croatian, a less ambiguous alternative is now often used in reliable sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:54, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
    • By that I assume you mean "Kosovan" is the less ambiguous alternative? If true, why isn't the main space set up that way? IOW this discussion should take place at Talk:Kosovar first, and at CfD later. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, from what I have seen, "Kosovan" always refers to the nationality or to something with respect to the state. "Kosovar" can refer to the nationality or the ethnicity. Kosovar is a disambiguation page, as it should be, so this isn't really an issue that needs to be resolved there by moving it to something less ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
        • You seem to have missed my point. If the main space has been dealing with this issue by redirecting "Kosovan" to "Kosovar" since 2009, then the assumption that they are synonymous and that the latter is simply the more common synonym is not automagically void. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
          • That's cute, but Wikipedia should not be used as a reference for itself. The terms have separate definitions in the OED:
            "Kosovan: A. adj. Of or relating to Kosovo or Kosovans. B. n. A native or inhabitant of Kosovo; a person of Kosovan descent.";
            "Kosovar: A. n. A native or inhabitant of Kosovo; a person of Kosovar descent. Often used to refer specifically to an inhabitant of Kosovo of Albanian ethnicity. B. adj. Of or relating to Kosovo or Kosovars. Often used to refer specifically to an inhabitant of Kosovo of Albanian ethnicity."
            Note what is included in the second set of definitions that is not in the first. I have never seen "Kosovan" used to refer to the group that is of Albanian ethnicity. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
            • But even if we assign some extraordinary value to the ordering of A and B in those two examples, they still confirm the legitimacy of the ambiguity, IOW that the usage of "Kosovar" to refer to inhabitants of Kosovo who are not of Albanian ethnicity is not by any means precluded. This is why this all sounds like a solution in search of a problem to me. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
              • Of course the use of "Kosovar" is not "precluded" in referring to the nationality. That's one reason the categories currently use "Kosovar". No one is saying that "Kosovar" cannot accurately refer to the nationality. What I am saying is that it can also refer to the ethnicity. "Kosovan", on the other hand, is not as ambiguous. It's not a huge problem, but it's also not as irrelevant as you suggest. I'm mostly fine with either, but on balance, I see a benefit on going with the one that is not ambiguous and appears to be gaining momentum as the term used for the nationality. (I place no value whatsoever on the ordering of A and B in the definitions, and I'm not sure what you're suggesting by noting it. The key point is that the definitions for "Kosovar" include the statement, "Often used to refer specifically to an inhabitant of Kosovo of Albanian ethnicity.") Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:25, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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:Soviet state establishments

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/2016 April 9 . – Fayenatic London 17:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Soviet state establishments to Category:Government agencies of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: The word establishments in the category name is confusing, in this category we clearly have government organizations. The proposed name fits in Category:Government agencies though I'm open to other suggestions. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Note that the child Category:State Committees of the Soviet Union (of which I'm in doubt if it should perhaps be merged) is also parented to Category:Defunct government agencies, so that might support the use of the term "government agency" for the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
• Keep -- "Agency" as used here is an Amercianism. I might accept Category:Soviet state bodies or Category:Soviet state institutions. The Soviet-Albanian item looks out of place. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just for info, minor detail, the Soviet–Albanian Friendship Society was in a later stage revived in the Soviet Union to promote restoration of the friendship. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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:Russian theatrical professionals

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Propose merging Category:Russian theatrical professionals to Category:Russian theatre people

Nominator's rationale: I found this category while creating and populating the by-country subcats of Category:Theatre people by nationality.
"Theatrical professionals" is at best a slightly more verbose form of "Theatre people". At worst it is a slight restriction of scope, because people notable for their contributions to theatre may not be "professional" in the modern sense.
So far as I can see from a search, this is the only "theatrical professionals" category. It is not eligible for WP:C2C, because "Russian theatre people" etc are too new to be treated as an existing category naming convention. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Rename to the shorter theatre people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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:Programs acquired by Radio Philippines Network

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Programs acquired by Radio Philippines Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Nondefining and inaccurate. I think we can tell from the category contents that (if correct) these series were licensed by RPN, not "acquired". And it should be obvious that we do not want articles to be categorized by every foreign or syndicated distributor. postdlf (talk) 02:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator's reasoning. Clearly not a defining aspect of the category contents. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 06:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per the above comments, with which I completely agree. Note that this category is empty anyway. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:31, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
  • It was pretty full when I nominated it; looks like someone has since reverted all of the additions. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The empty category was populated by an IP about 10 hours after it was created, without any evidence that any of the article subjects aired on the network. The IP's edits were subsequently reverted soon after by another editor. Your nomination happened in the short gap between when the category was populated, and when it was emptied. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:24, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Delete – agree with nom's reasoning. SJK (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• DElete as empty. If it was for foreign programmes aired in Philippines, it is a performance by performer (i.e. broadcaster) category, which we would not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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:Programs acquired by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Propose deleting Category:Programs acquired by Intercontinental Broadcasting Corporation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining property of the category members. Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 02:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and per my nomination of the similar category above. postdlf (talk) 02:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
• Delete – agree with nom's reasoning. SJK (talk) 05:14, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
• Delete -- as preceding item. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

---

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.