February 11
Category:Disabled artists
- 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 10:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Disabled artists to Category:Entertainers with disabilities
- Nominator's rationale: Newly created category by someone apparently writing an article about actors. Artist commonly refers to visual artists and a broader scope would seem better - Entertainers covers actors, dancers and other creative performers. Similar categories in the 'Disability' category tree are worded "FOOists with disabilities". Sionk ( talk) 21:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename and put in a Category:People with disabilities. Example of a category already using that scheme: Category:Sportspeople with disabilities SkywalkerPL ( talk) 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a trait of people we need to categorize by. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Better defined category. Category:Artists only covers those involved in the visual arts. Dimadick ( talk) 08:02, 25 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:News television series
- 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 16#Category:News television series. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Nominator's rationale: "Television news series" is a quite awkward term (I'd almost say neologism) that seems to be inspired by using the scheme set by Category:Television series by genre as a passepartout for all genres. "Television news series" isn't an acknowledged synonym per News program. I doubt that it is widely understood (at least not correctly) rather resonating with special interests series, Infotainment or even Category:Television news sitcoms.
- Now the choice of "Television news shows" isn't obvious. While "Television news programmes" has some precedent (see Category:British television news programmes), and while "Television news programs" is most common on Google and the Library of Congress subject heading, we're trying to avoid words with spelling variants per WP:ENGVAR. I'm therefore proposing "Television news shows", which renders quite some Google hits including on Google books and which is broad enough to encompass Category:Current affairs shows and Breakfast television/morning shows.
- Note that for now I'm not proposing a switch from using demonyms (like "French television news shows" or "Spanish television news shows") to country names (like "Television news shows of France" or "Television news shows of Spain") as I want to get the more obvious problem fixed first. -- PanchoS ( talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Addition: Note that this also avoids the ambiguity of "news television" which tends to refer only to dedicated news channels, while "television news" encompasses both programs on news channels and news programs on general-interest channels. It also brings the categories into line with parent Category:Television news. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
News television series: Survey and discussion
- Oppose, I don't see how there's a problem here that requires us to rearrange two words. There's no confusion here as to what the current category means, and I don't see why the proposed name is less awkward when it actually inserts the descriptive modifier "news" in the middle of the underlying noun "television series". One could then more easily confuse "television news" to be the subject of these shows, such as programming on E! or the TV Guide channel. I'm also perplexed by the arbitrary choice of "shows" when "series" is by far the dominant term used in our category structure, with "programmes" second. I'm not necessarily opposed to a proper rename, but I think this particular issue should have been discussed in a better and wider forum first to gauge support (including for the idea that there's even a problem to be solved here) and better alternatives. It seems at best like unnecessary work, and at worst would involve a loss of clarity. postdlf ( talk) 17:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Alt rename, the articles in the category generally mention something with news program(me) so Category:Television news programs or Category:Television news programmes seem the better choices for a new category name. I don't see why ENGVAR issues would make us avoid using the term program(me) in a category name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- * @
Marcocapelle: I'm fine with your alternative proposal. Should I add it as a variant, or do you think it'd be better to restart the CfD? --
PanchoS (
talk) 23:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say just keep it the way it is now. People have the room here to (dis)agree with any of the proposed variants and to come up with other alternatives. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @ PanchoS: I suggest that this should be relisted with a full list of the alternative names. IMHO there would be no need to re-tag the pages. Would you be willing to work out the spelling variations? – Fayenatic L ondon 18:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ Fayenatic london and Marcocapelle: Sure, but I thought about it again. Am I mistaken, or isn't program(me)s ambiguous in that it may either refer to an individual news show, or to a TV channel? I agree that avoiding WP:ENGVAR is no compelling argument, but if we were to introduce even more ambiguity with "program(me)s", then I don't know if it's better than the awkward "series". Either way, I think we need quite a bit additional input before relisting… Regards, PanchoS ( talk) 20:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ PanchoS: Programme (like show) might be used to refer to episode (e.g. "last night's programme") as well as series, but never means the same as channel. As for relisting, it is the best way to get more input. It would just mean closing this section and pasting a copy of it on today's log page to carry on from there. (I'd probably omit this bit at the end.) – Fayenatic L ondon 14:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ Fayenatic london: Ah, okay, thanks. Then feel free to go ahead, of course! Cheers, PanchoS ( talk) 16:29, 16 April 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:24-hour television news channels
- 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 16#Category:24-hour television news channels. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon 19:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Nominator's rationale: A TV channel is a TV channel, not just an individual program/show/series. Apart from that, I can't see why we're limiting this to 24-hour channels. While some channels will have a 24/7 full news program, most others - including listed ones - will repeat old and/or trash material. These days, only few channels will still show a nightly test pattern, but if some do, there is no good reason to exclude them, while including channels airing old/trash material at nights. PanchoS ( talk) 16:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, the "24-hour" part was added because people had a tendency to add any television station that aired any news at all to the category, even broadcast stations that follow the typical broadcast "mostly entertainment programming but with 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. newscasts mixed in" model. But this category tree is meant for things like CNN, CBC News Network or BBC World, stations whose programming is all news, and not for every single station that airs any news at all. I'm not wedded to the "24-hour" part, if somebody has another alternative — nominator does have a point that some channels will only air news until midnight, and then run infomercials or a test pattern or the owner's ruminations on God and the Devil overnight, thus making them "18-hour" news channels instead of "24-hour" news channels — but the category name does have to explicitly clarify the distinction between "dedicated news channel" and "regular channel that happens to air a couple of hours of news within a schedule that's mostly not news", because it's not meant to include the latter. Oppose nomination as constituted, but I'm open to another alternative which explicitly maintains the necessary distinction if somebody's got one to offer. Bearcat ( talk) 20:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Questions should we categorize channels by content at all? Can we always clearly distinguish news from entertainment? Does a channel have to provide news 100% of the time to be in this category, or at least 80% or what? Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:18, 11 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.
Radio by country
- 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 according to Option B. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
- either Option A
- or Option B
- Nominator's rationale: The by-country sub-categories of Category:Radio by country nearly all use the format "Fooish radio". (The lone outlier is Category:Radio in Georgia (country)).
- At CFD January 28, the sub-cats of Category:Broadcasting by country were renamed from "Fooian broadcasting" to "Broadcasting in Foo".
- The rationale for dropping the adjectival form in the broadcasting categories was best explained by
PanchoS:
Using nationality names tends to be inappropriate for the media of ethnic minorities, and is prone to confusion with eponymous languages, especially in an area working with language. For example: TRT Kurdî perfectly fits in Category:Television stations in Turkey, and it would fit in Category:Broadcasting in Turkey, but does it fit in Category:Turkish broadcasting? Less so. Or how about private, Catalan-language station RAC 1? This clearly is broadcasting in Spain, but is it Spanish broadcasting? Clearly in terms of being located in Spain and being under Spanish jurisdiction, but less so in terms of "Spanish culture" and certainly not in terms of Spanish language. Let's be more precise here and use the country names rather than nationalities.
- There remains a choice between "in" or "of":
- Option A would standardise all categories on "Radio of Foo".
- Option B would standardise all categories on "Radio in Foo".
- There are few head articles to guide us, and I initially preferred Option A (as used in Category:Cinema by country), because it seemed more flexible. But I am persuaded by an observation at the media-by-country CFD that "of Foo" may imply some sort of state control, or ownership within that counry. So I prefer Option B, like Category:Television by country.
- Note that the subcats mostly use "in Foo": Category:Internet radio by country, Category:Amateur radio by country, Category:Radio stations by country, and Category:Radio organizations by country. The adjectival form is used by Category:Radio networks by country and Category:Radio programs by country. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Related discussion: CFD 2016 February 10#Media by country. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Categories now all tagged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Radio by country: Survey and discussion
- Support Option B ("Radio in foo country"), replacing demonyms by proper country names.
Per my arguments above at CFD January 28 and CFD February 10, and to bring categories in line with main articles such as Radio in the United States or Radio in Turkey (might therefore even qualify for WP:C2D, but let's better have an explicit consensus). Again, thanks for quoting me ;-) -- PanchoS ( talk) 16:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC) - Support Option B ("in"). One thing it's also worth noting here is that the sibling categories for television by country have long been named in the "Television in Country" format rather than "Demonym television" — and it's unnecessarily confusing for the television and radio siblings to be named in opposite formats to each other. Although I've never directly tackled getting a batch nomination together because daunted, I've long thought that this did need to happen. Bearcat ( talk) 20:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Option A for two main reasons. Firstly, radio waves cross borders, and can easily be picked up in neighbouring countries – I know my uncle in Ireland listens to the BBC, so it's clearly not limited to being "Radio in the United Kingdom". Secondly, in some cases "Radio in Foo" will be very controversial – one example being Arutz 7, an Israeli radio station that broadcasts to settlers in the West Bank. It would be unhelpful (for navigation purposes) not to include it in the Israel category, but lots of people will get upset about it being in "Radio in Israel". If ultimately a decision is made to go with "in", I strongly recommend that Israel is made an exception for the aforementioned reason. Number 5 7 14:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Prefer B (in). This refers to the location of the broadcaster/transmitter. The fact that it may have overseas listeners does not affect its location, even if it may have transmitters away from its main country. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support whatever option is decided at CFD 2016 February 10#Media by country. We should attempt to be consistent in category trees (neither option is perfect - nor is anything else in life...) and this category tree is obviously less important than the more expansive "media" tree. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Option B for the reasons stated by other users. Paewiki ( talk) 10:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Option B sounds slightly better, also as per rationale by Number 57.-- Mondiad ( talk) 18:04, 21 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:Wikipedia old valued picture candidates
- 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. The category is already empty. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Valued pictures was shut down in 2010 (note: this is separate from Wikipedia:Featured pictures) so there's no need to categorize pages for being of interest to the Valued pictures initiative. DexDor (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Admin categories need to server a current function. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Listify into the old project page, so that people can see what was what back when if they want to revive it. -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 04:59, 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:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed)
- 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 10:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't appear to be in use (for its intended purpose - the only page in it is a user subpage). The inlinks to this category are from a deprecated template, talk pages etc - not from any process telling editors to put pages in this category. DexDor (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As obsolete unless someone comes forward to assert otherwise. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- @ Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia:; pinging featured article review coordinators about this nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- This category was populated through
Template:FARpassed, which has been replaced by
Template:Article history. It is no longer required for the "official" FAR process. I think it was kept originally because
User:Carcharoth wanted to use it outwith the process, see
User talk:Marskell/Archive 27#Explaining further for details.
DrKay (
talk) 09:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. That discussion was over 7 years ago. No objections from me to deleting this category. In any case, it should be up to the FAR coordinators what is done here. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I can't see any immediate reason to keep it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Per above, we don't need it. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:47, 20 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.
Contract bridge
- 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 all.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 06:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming (see drop down boxes for categories):
- Nominator's rationale: Nominated here are the subcategories of Category:Contract bridge that use just "bridge". Technically, these are all eligible for speedy renaming, but I can anticipate some possible objections. I've divided the categories into two sets:
- Set A are the ones that I think should definitely be renamed. Generally, these are ones that are actually ambiguous in the real world as they stand now.
- Set B are the ones that I'm not as worried about—they could be seen as being ambiguous in theory, but they don't really have any other real-world meaning that I know of and I would be fine if they were not renamed, though renaming A but not B would create inconsistencies in the tree.
- Users can therefore !vote to (1) rename A only, (2) rename both A and B, or (3) rename neither. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and also to harmonize with the Contract bridge article name. Prefer (2) over (1) for consistency and again per main article name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename Neither - I think that the categories in Set A actually belong in Set B, as I can't see anyone being misled. (The name of the "contract bridge" article itself is a different case, as there 'is' the likelihood of confusion without the "contract".) Outside Wikipedia the full name of the game contract bridge is rarely used. No one ever says "would you like to play contract bridge?". The "contract" was there originally to distinguish the game from its predecessor "auction bridge", but that game died out many decades ago. All that adding "contract" to the names of the categories would do is add verbosity. However if it was decided to rename, I'd favour renaming everything for the sake of consistency. JH (
talk page) 08:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Bridge writers" could be people who write about bridges. "Bridge administrators" could be administrators of bridges. "Bridge websites" could be websites about bridges. "Bridge books" could be books about bridges. Etc., etc., etc. These might not be the most likely meaning, but they certainly are possible meanings in the real world. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see the point that the name doesn't comply with
WP:COMMONNAME too well. I would support if anyone would nominate the article to be renamed to
Bridge (game) (over redirect), and if the rename would get consensus the categories could follow speedily. But as this is still a hypothetical scenario, I'm maintaining my earlier vote for the time being.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with that point as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename all per Contract bridge and Category:Contract bridge. As the nom says, this could be a speedy. Oculi ( talk) 11:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- It certainly could not be a speedy, as the nominator has (rightly as it turns out) anticipated objections.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- It satisfies the initial conditions for a speedy nom. One cannot tell whether it would have passed, as not all that many editors pay any attention to the speedy noms.
Oculi (
talk) 20:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- In theory, speedies are supposed to be uncontroversial. If it's easy to foresee objections, I think it's probably a good idea to not use speedy, even if you suspect you might be able to "sneak it through" due to a lack of vigilance. If a user subjectively knew that a nomination was going to be controversial, but they nevertheless tried to sneak it through a speedy rename to avoid objections, I personally would consider that an abuse of process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- It satisfies the initial conditions for a speedy nom. One cannot tell whether it would have passed, as not all that many editors pay any attention to the speedy noms.
Oculi (
talk) 20:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- It certainly could not be a speedy, as the nominator has (rightly as it turns out) anticipated objections.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename all. Removing ambiguity, however slight, is beneficial IMHO. With respect, I do not think this adds verbosity since categories are navigational aids and do not have main space prominence. Newwhist ( talk) 12:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename all -- I assume that all refer to the widely played Contract Bridge and none to the older game of auction bridge, which I suspect no one plays today. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:16, 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.
February 11
Category:Disabled artists
- 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 10:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Disabled artists to Category:Entertainers with disabilities
- Nominator's rationale: Newly created category by someone apparently writing an article about actors. Artist commonly refers to visual artists and a broader scope would seem better - Entertainers covers actors, dancers and other creative performers. Similar categories in the 'Disability' category tree are worded "FOOists with disabilities". Sionk ( talk) 21:43, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename and put in a Category:People with disabilities. Example of a category already using that scheme: Category:Sportspeople with disabilities SkywalkerPL ( talk) 16:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete This is not a trait of people we need to categorize by. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Better defined category. Category:Artists only covers those involved in the visual arts. Dimadick ( talk) 08:02, 25 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:News television series
- 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 16#Category:News television series. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Nominator's rationale: "Television news series" is a quite awkward term (I'd almost say neologism) that seems to be inspired by using the scheme set by Category:Television series by genre as a passepartout for all genres. "Television news series" isn't an acknowledged synonym per News program. I doubt that it is widely understood (at least not correctly) rather resonating with special interests series, Infotainment or even Category:Television news sitcoms.
- Now the choice of "Television news shows" isn't obvious. While "Television news programmes" has some precedent (see Category:British television news programmes), and while "Television news programs" is most common on Google and the Library of Congress subject heading, we're trying to avoid words with spelling variants per WP:ENGVAR. I'm therefore proposing "Television news shows", which renders quite some Google hits including on Google books and which is broad enough to encompass Category:Current affairs shows and Breakfast television/morning shows.
- Note that for now I'm not proposing a switch from using demonyms (like "French television news shows" or "Spanish television news shows") to country names (like "Television news shows of France" or "Television news shows of Spain") as I want to get the more obvious problem fixed first. -- PanchoS ( talk) 17:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Addition: Note that this also avoids the ambiguity of "news television" which tends to refer only to dedicated news channels, while "television news" encompasses both programs on news channels and news programs on general-interest channels. It also brings the categories into line with parent Category:Television news. -- PanchoS ( talk) 18:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
News television series: Survey and discussion
- Oppose, I don't see how there's a problem here that requires us to rearrange two words. There's no confusion here as to what the current category means, and I don't see why the proposed name is less awkward when it actually inserts the descriptive modifier "news" in the middle of the underlying noun "television series". One could then more easily confuse "television news" to be the subject of these shows, such as programming on E! or the TV Guide channel. I'm also perplexed by the arbitrary choice of "shows" when "series" is by far the dominant term used in our category structure, with "programmes" second. I'm not necessarily opposed to a proper rename, but I think this particular issue should have been discussed in a better and wider forum first to gauge support (including for the idea that there's even a problem to be solved here) and better alternatives. It seems at best like unnecessary work, and at worst would involve a loss of clarity. postdlf ( talk) 17:59, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Alt rename, the articles in the category generally mention something with news program(me) so Category:Television news programs or Category:Television news programmes seem the better choices for a new category name. I don't see why ENGVAR issues would make us avoid using the term program(me) in a category name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- * @
Marcocapelle: I'm fine with your alternative proposal. Should I add it as a variant, or do you think it'd be better to restart the CfD? --
PanchoS (
talk) 23:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I'd say just keep it the way it is now. People have the room here to (dis)agree with any of the proposed variants and to come up with other alternatives. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:20, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- @ PanchoS: I suggest that this should be relisted with a full list of the alternative names. IMHO there would be no need to re-tag the pages. Would you be willing to work out the spelling variations? – Fayenatic L ondon 18:45, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ Fayenatic london and Marcocapelle: Sure, but I thought about it again. Am I mistaken, or isn't program(me)s ambiguous in that it may either refer to an individual news show, or to a TV channel? I agree that avoiding WP:ENGVAR is no compelling argument, but if we were to introduce even more ambiguity with "program(me)s", then I don't know if it's better than the awkward "series". Either way, I think we need quite a bit additional input before relisting… Regards, PanchoS ( talk) 20:07, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ PanchoS: Programme (like show) might be used to refer to episode (e.g. "last night's programme") as well as series, but never means the same as channel. As for relisting, it is the best way to get more input. It would just mean closing this section and pasting a copy of it on today's log page to carry on from there. (I'd probably omit this bit at the end.) – Fayenatic L ondon 14:39, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ Fayenatic london: Ah, okay, thanks. Then feel free to go ahead, of course! Cheers, PanchoS ( talk) 16:29, 16 April 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:24-hour television news channels
- 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 16#Category:24-hour television news channels. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon 19:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Nominator's rationale: A TV channel is a TV channel, not just an individual program/show/series. Apart from that, I can't see why we're limiting this to 24-hour channels. While some channels will have a 24/7 full news program, most others - including listed ones - will repeat old and/or trash material. These days, only few channels will still show a nightly test pattern, but if some do, there is no good reason to exclude them, while including channels airing old/trash material at nights. PanchoS ( talk) 16:08, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, the "24-hour" part was added because people had a tendency to add any television station that aired any news at all to the category, even broadcast stations that follow the typical broadcast "mostly entertainment programming but with 6 p.m. and 11 p.m. newscasts mixed in" model. But this category tree is meant for things like CNN, CBC News Network or BBC World, stations whose programming is all news, and not for every single station that airs any news at all. I'm not wedded to the "24-hour" part, if somebody has another alternative — nominator does have a point that some channels will only air news until midnight, and then run infomercials or a test pattern or the owner's ruminations on God and the Devil overnight, thus making them "18-hour" news channels instead of "24-hour" news channels — but the category name does have to explicitly clarify the distinction between "dedicated news channel" and "regular channel that happens to air a couple of hours of news within a schedule that's mostly not news", because it's not meant to include the latter. Oppose nomination as constituted, but I'm open to another alternative which explicitly maintains the necessary distinction if somebody's got one to offer. Bearcat ( talk) 20:07, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Questions should we categorize channels by content at all? Can we always clearly distinguish news from entertainment? Does a channel have to provide news 100% of the time to be in this category, or at least 80% or what? Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:18, 11 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.
Radio by country
- 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 according to Option B. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming
- either Option A
- or Option B
- Nominator's rationale: The by-country sub-categories of Category:Radio by country nearly all use the format "Fooish radio". (The lone outlier is Category:Radio in Georgia (country)).
- At CFD January 28, the sub-cats of Category:Broadcasting by country were renamed from "Fooian broadcasting" to "Broadcasting in Foo".
- The rationale for dropping the adjectival form in the broadcasting categories was best explained by
PanchoS:
Using nationality names tends to be inappropriate for the media of ethnic minorities, and is prone to confusion with eponymous languages, especially in an area working with language. For example: TRT Kurdî perfectly fits in Category:Television stations in Turkey, and it would fit in Category:Broadcasting in Turkey, but does it fit in Category:Turkish broadcasting? Less so. Or how about private, Catalan-language station RAC 1? This clearly is broadcasting in Spain, but is it Spanish broadcasting? Clearly in terms of being located in Spain and being under Spanish jurisdiction, but less so in terms of "Spanish culture" and certainly not in terms of Spanish language. Let's be more precise here and use the country names rather than nationalities.
- There remains a choice between "in" or "of":
- Option A would standardise all categories on "Radio of Foo".
- Option B would standardise all categories on "Radio in Foo".
- There are few head articles to guide us, and I initially preferred Option A (as used in Category:Cinema by country), because it seemed more flexible. But I am persuaded by an observation at the media-by-country CFD that "of Foo" may imply some sort of state control, or ownership within that counry. So I prefer Option B, like Category:Television by country.
- Note that the subcats mostly use "in Foo": Category:Internet radio by country, Category:Amateur radio by country, Category:Radio stations by country, and Category:Radio organizations by country. The adjectival form is used by Category:Radio networks by country and Category:Radio programs by country. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Related discussion: CFD 2016 February 10#Media by country. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:03, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Categories now all tagged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Radio by country: Survey and discussion
- Support Option B ("Radio in foo country"), replacing demonyms by proper country names.
Per my arguments above at CFD January 28 and CFD February 10, and to bring categories in line with main articles such as Radio in the United States or Radio in Turkey (might therefore even qualify for WP:C2D, but let's better have an explicit consensus). Again, thanks for quoting me ;-) -- PanchoS ( talk) 16:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC) - Support Option B ("in"). One thing it's also worth noting here is that the sibling categories for television by country have long been named in the "Television in Country" format rather than "Demonym television" — and it's unnecessarily confusing for the television and radio siblings to be named in opposite formats to each other. Although I've never directly tackled getting a batch nomination together because daunted, I've long thought that this did need to happen. Bearcat ( talk) 20:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Option A for two main reasons. Firstly, radio waves cross borders, and can easily be picked up in neighbouring countries – I know my uncle in Ireland listens to the BBC, so it's clearly not limited to being "Radio in the United Kingdom". Secondly, in some cases "Radio in Foo" will be very controversial – one example being Arutz 7, an Israeli radio station that broadcasts to settlers in the West Bank. It would be unhelpful (for navigation purposes) not to include it in the Israel category, but lots of people will get upset about it being in "Radio in Israel". If ultimately a decision is made to go with "in", I strongly recommend that Israel is made an exception for the aforementioned reason. Number 5 7 14:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- Prefer B (in). This refers to the location of the broadcaster/transmitter. The fact that it may have overseas listeners does not affect its location, even if it may have transmitters away from its main country. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support whatever option is decided at CFD 2016 February 10#Media by country. We should attempt to be consistent in category trees (neither option is perfect - nor is anything else in life...) and this category tree is obviously less important than the more expansive "media" tree. — Brigade Piron ( talk) 09:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support Option B for the reasons stated by other users. Paewiki ( talk) 10:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Option B sounds slightly better, also as per rationale by Number 57.-- Mondiad ( talk) 18:04, 21 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:Wikipedia old valued picture candidates
- 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. The category is already empty. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:54, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Valued pictures was shut down in 2010 (note: this is separate from Wikipedia:Featured pictures) so there's no need to categorize pages for being of interest to the Valued pictures initiative. DexDor (talk) 07:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Admin categories need to server a current function. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Listify into the old project page, so that people can see what was what back when if they want to revive it. -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 04:59, 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:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed)
- 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 10:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't appear to be in use (for its intended purpose - the only page in it is a user subpage). The inlinks to this category are from a deprecated template, talk pages etc - not from any process telling editors to put pages in this category. DexDor (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Delete As obsolete unless someone comes forward to assert otherwise. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- @ Nikkimaria, Casliber, DrKay, and Maralia:; pinging featured article review coordinators about this nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:49, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- This category was populated through
Template:FARpassed, which has been replaced by
Template:Article history. It is no longer required for the "official" FAR process. I think it was kept originally because
User:Carcharoth wanted to use it outwith the process, see
User talk:Marskell/Archive 27#Explaining further for details.
DrKay (
talk) 09:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping. That discussion was over 7 years ago. No objections from me to deleting this category. In any case, it should be up to the FAR coordinators what is done here. Carcharoth ( talk) 10:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, I can't see any immediate reason to keep it. Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
- Per above, we don't need it. Nikkimaria ( talk) 13:47, 20 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.
Contract bridge
- 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 all.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 06:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming (see drop down boxes for categories):
- Nominator's rationale: Nominated here are the subcategories of Category:Contract bridge that use just "bridge". Technically, these are all eligible for speedy renaming, but I can anticipate some possible objections. I've divided the categories into two sets:
- Set A are the ones that I think should definitely be renamed. Generally, these are ones that are actually ambiguous in the real world as they stand now.
- Set B are the ones that I'm not as worried about—they could be seen as being ambiguous in theory, but they don't really have any other real-world meaning that I know of and I would be fine if they were not renamed, though renaming A but not B would create inconsistencies in the tree.
- Users can therefore !vote to (1) rename A only, (2) rename both A and B, or (3) rename neither. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and also to harmonize with the Contract bridge article name. Prefer (2) over (1) for consistency and again per main article name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename Neither - I think that the categories in Set A actually belong in Set B, as I can't see anyone being misled. (The name of the "contract bridge" article itself is a different case, as there 'is' the likelihood of confusion without the "contract".) Outside Wikipedia the full name of the game contract bridge is rarely used. No one ever says "would you like to play contract bridge?". The "contract" was there originally to distinguish the game from its predecessor "auction bridge", but that game died out many decades ago. All that adding "contract" to the names of the categories would do is add verbosity. However if it was decided to rename, I'd favour renaming everything for the sake of consistency. JH (
talk page) 08:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- "Bridge writers" could be people who write about bridges. "Bridge administrators" could be administrators of bridges. "Bridge websites" could be websites about bridges. "Bridge books" could be books about bridges. Etc., etc., etc. These might not be the most likely meaning, but they certainly are possible meanings in the real world. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- I see the point that the name doesn't comply with
WP:COMMONNAME too well. I would support if anyone would nominate the article to be renamed to
Bridge (game) (over redirect), and if the rename would get consensus the categories could follow speedily. But as this is still a hypothetical scenario, I'm maintaining my earlier vote for the time being.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:32, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with that point as well. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename all per Contract bridge and Category:Contract bridge. As the nom says, this could be a speedy. Oculi ( talk) 11:38, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- It certainly could not be a speedy, as the nominator has (rightly as it turns out) anticipated objections.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- It satisfies the initial conditions for a speedy nom. One cannot tell whether it would have passed, as not all that many editors pay any attention to the speedy noms.
Oculi (
talk) 20:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- In theory, speedies are supposed to be uncontroversial. If it's easy to foresee objections, I think it's probably a good idea to not use speedy, even if you suspect you might be able to "sneak it through" due to a lack of vigilance. If a user subjectively knew that a nomination was going to be controversial, but they nevertheless tried to sneak it through a speedy rename to avoid objections, I personally would consider that an abuse of process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- It satisfies the initial conditions for a speedy nom. One cannot tell whether it would have passed, as not all that many editors pay any attention to the speedy noms.
Oculi (
talk) 20:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- It certainly could not be a speedy, as the nominator has (rightly as it turns out) anticipated objections.
Johnbod (
talk) 15:47, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename all. Removing ambiguity, however slight, is beneficial IMHO. With respect, I do not think this adds verbosity since categories are navigational aids and do not have main space prominence. Newwhist ( talk) 12:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- Rename all -- I assume that all refer to the widely played Contract Bridge and none to the older game of auction bridge, which I suspect no one plays today. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:16, 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.