Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25

Television series about gender

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 both. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Here is a link to the diffs in case there is scope for a list to be useful. (Apologies for the incorrect link in the edit summaries.) – Fayenatic London 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too broad categories, and they are not defining characteristics of the television series. Almost all television series have at least one female and one male main character. Thousands of TV series have female characters as the main protagonist and even more have a male as the main character. I would be open to a more narrow category, such Category:Television series about women's issues/ Category:Television series about men's issues or Category:Television series about feminism JDDJS ( talk) 23:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Television series are not defined by the gender of their leading characters per se (well, okay, maybe Transparent is, but it's already catted as LGBT-related.) As noted, most television series have both male and female characters, and it's completely arbitrary to set a specific percentage threshold beyond which the television series is about the men in it but not about the women in it, or vice versa. To use one example in the women category, while it's certainly true that Betty Suarez was the lead in Ugly Betty, was the series not at least somewhat about Daniel Meade and Marc St. James and Betty's dad and her gay nephew too? Is Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 purely about the B just because she's the one named in the title, and not partially about Mark Reynolds and Luther Wilson and Eli Webber and "James Van Der Beek" as well? Is I Dream of Jeannie inherently about Jeannie but not about Tony too? Conversely, is The Big Bang Theory strictly "about" Sheldon and Leonard and Howard and Rajesh, and not at least partially also about Penny? There are really very few television series at all that are purely about men or purely about women without any members of the other gender in the character mix as well — so there's no way to populate these categories without committing acts of original research to arbitrarily decide what percentage of "aboutness" each show devotes to its men vs. its women. Bearcat ( talk) 14:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • To be honest, I don't think there is any name that could be given these categories that would preclude their being misused. Bearcat ( talk) 23:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete suffers from the general problems of things "about" categories; how much about the subject must it be, and what reliable source tells us that it's at least that much. Moreover, about "men" or "women" is almost impossibly wide-ranged, do men or women characters make it about that sex? If so, every show except some on animal planet would likely be in one or the other, or both, these categories... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this is categorizing by a characteristic that is too broad (as nom said) and trivial (in my own words). Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:27, 6 March 2017 (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:American crime drama 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: keep for now without prejudice to renominating together with parent Category:Crime drama television series and siblings. Marcocapelle ( talk) 00:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Basically all crime series are dramas. redundant to have both cats. JDDJS ( talk) 23:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep That's not true - some are comedies. For example Angie Tribeca, which is certainly a crime comedy TV series that is not a drama. Jim Michael ( talk) 23:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That's just one exception. Right now, the two cats are a mess, with some articles being in both cats, and some just in the parent, when they belong in the drama subcat, but if everything was categorized correctly, almost all the articles would be in the drama subcat, with just Angie Tribecea, and two or three other exceptions, being in the main category. If anything, there should be a subcat for the crime comedies, because they are the ones that deviate from the norm. JDDJS ( talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, there isn't just one exception. Just because the commenter only mentioned one example doesn't mean no other examples exist. There are a lot of crime sitcoms: Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Sledge Hammer, Car 54 Where Are You, Public Morals, Barney Miller, Police Squad, The Thin Blue Line, Bakersfield PD, Archer, Reno 911...and then crime reality shows like Cops and America's Most Wanted and Cold Case Files. And at any rate, if the correct answer every time some stuff was getting misfiled in a general parent category instead of a more specific subcategory was to delete the subcategory rather than refiling the misfiled stuff, then the entire category system would have imploded into a "one catch-all category for everything" singularity at least a decade ago. Bearcat ( talk) 14:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep, without prejudice against a batch renomination. The nominator does have a potentially valid point (although not necessarily a slamdunk) about whether this is really needed or not — I'm not convinced by that argument as of yet, but nominator is within his right to make it and I'm willing to hear him out. However, that argument doesn't apply solely to this category in isolation, but also affects the entire Category:Crime drama television series category — which has several parallel subcategories for other countries besides the US alone. There's no good reason to treat this category in isolation from its parent tree; we need to either keep them all or delete them all, not to delete this while leaving the rest of the tree intact. Bearcat ( talk) 14:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, there'd be no sense in just deleting this subcat.
Articles being in the wrong categories is a commonly used argument to delete cats, but it's not a valid reason. Articles that are in the incorrect cats should be put in the correct cats. Crime drama TV series, such as The Closer are very common and are a distinct genre, which is significantly different to crime comedy TV shows such as Brooklyn Nine-Nine and to crime reality shows such as Cops. Jim Michael ( talk) 22:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge whether it's a drama, a comedy, or a comedo-drama is not overly relevant or distinguishing. Moreover, many of the series in the narrower category are also in the broader one anyway, so if someone were looking for non-drama crime series they'd be flummoxed by the miscategorized articles. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
It's very relevant and distinguishing. Crime dramas such as Without a Trace, Cold Case, The Closer etc. are very different to crime comedies such as Angie Tribeca an Brooklyn Nine-Nine. Those articles that are miscategorised should be put in the correct cats. Jim Michael ( talk) 05:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Three-way intersecting categories are generally not recommended by WP:NARROWCAT, and I think you need a compelling argument to override the guideline. It's one thing to diffuse a genre category into its respective sub-genres (like horror films into slasher films etc) but it's quite another to start arbitrarily crossing over genres because the number of categories will increase exponentially and quickly become unmanageble. Category:American crime television series and Category:American drama television series clearly have this covered and I don't see an organizational benefit in crossing them over. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
That link makes a good case for this cat to exist. It's not a narrow intersection: there are hundreds of such TV shows. It's a commonplace, popular and mainstream genre combination. It, and its parent cats, are large. Similar cats rightfully exist for other genre combinations - such as Category:American comedy-drama television series. These are distinct and common genre combinations. Jim Michael ( talk) 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The parent categories are not so large that they require diffusing, and on an organizational basis articles should be placed in the most significant category. For example, to most people The Sopranos is a crime series first and foremost, so it is not unreasonable to expect to find it in that category, but diffusing it has taken it out of the category that most people would expect to find it in. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
There's no rule or guideline to say that articles should only be in the most significant category. It's stated in the first sentence and the infobox of The Sopranos that it's an American crime drama, so you'd certainly expect it to be in this cat. Jim Michael ( talk) 02:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The series is about organized crime so the article should be in the crime category. This is just an extra layer of organization for the sake of an extra layer of organization and I don't really see how it helps editors and readers. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Crime drama is distinct from criminal comedy, crime documentaries etc. - as I've already explained in this discussion. That's why it's relevant and why subcatting the crime genre is worthwhile. Jim Michael ( talk) 03:40, 28 February 2017 (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:Avunculicide in fiction

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a very common theme in fiction JDDJS ( talk) 23:16, 25 February 2017 (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:Gandhi conspirators

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is to clarify and distinguish from other Gandhi assassinations - of Rajiv Gandhi and of Indira Gandhi. The parent category already makes that distinction Brandmeister talk 12:36, 25 February 2017 (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.

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people by location

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/2017 April 26 – the last one separately. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge per WP:NONDEF and WP:SMALLCAT. The voivodeship where these people were born/active is not defining for any of these people. We sometimes categorize people by a non-defining country subdivision if the parent category becomes too big, but that problem does not occur here at all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • There is a huge difference between subdivisions of current countries versus subdivisions of former countries. In the latter case it nearly requires WP:OR to determine from which subdivision someone was, and besides when it's long time ago the subdivision is in most cases entirely irrelevant for that person. 13:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This could be discussed in case by case basis. For some people, their province origin might be quite important. For example, Ducal Lithuanian category refers to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and I have known some Lithuanian editors who felt rather strongly regarding making it clear that a person was not just "Polish", but a Lithuanian from the Grand Duchy as well as a "Pole" from the PLC, through I note we don't seem to have a corresponding category for people from Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. (Ping User:Renata3 here, so we can hear more from a Lithuanian editor here on the usefulness of the Ducal Lithuanian category, for example). OR shouldn't be a problem, as long as we know date and place of birth. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Piotrus and Renata3: It would be less of a problem to distinct Polish from Lithuanian people, but the categories above are much more granular. Knowing date and place of birth is not enough to determine voivodeship, it may also require the study of ancient maps which is OR. People in these categories are not simply known for being from a voivodeship, which is why NONDEF applies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:30, 19 March 2017 (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.

History of Baghdad

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 (where necessary; some of the contents are already in the targets or a more specific sub-cat). – Fayenatic London 11:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one (or occasionally two) articles per category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (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.

National Film Registry categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 18 March 2017 (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:People from North Omaha, Nebraska

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. – Fayenatic London 12:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category with an even weaker justification than the South Omaha category I've nominated below; North Omaha is not described in its article as having been a town or city in its own right at any point in its history, so this is even more of a straight "neighborhood" category. Again, this would make sense if Omaha were the size of New York City and needed borough subcategories for size management purposes -- but if the parent category only has 66 articles in it, then it's not large enough to need diffusion by individual neighborhood. Bearcat ( talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (which applies equally to the category below): Cat:People from Omaha, Nebraska actually contains a total of about 700 people ( Petscan search), most of them diffused into the occupational sub-categories.
    These people could equally well in a neighbourhood category, so a neighbourhood category scheme for Omaha would be drawing on a much wider pool than the 66 articles mentioned by the nominator, which are merely not already diffused by occupation.
    I don't think that this scheme of merely splitting the city in two is much help, but in principle there is a big enough pool to make neighbourhood categories viable. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with a comment that is also related to the usage of "People from" categories in general. People by location categories make a whole lot of sense in categorizing where people have deserved their notability. The flip-side of that is, for example, if people have deserved their notability at a national level, then categorizing them in a particular city merely causes unnecessary category clutter, at least in my view. (Note that biographies in particular often contain a lot of category clutter.) So this reasoning is a lot stricter than what the people by location categories are used for currently. A similar thing happens in this nomination, but then at a local level: people may have deserved their notability in Omaha in the city as a whole, but the exact place of where they have lived in Omaha has nothing to do with their reason of notability. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:24, 25 February 2017 (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:People from South Omaha, Nebraska

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 as above. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific subcategory for a neighborhood within a city. While subcatting people by borough makes sense in a major metropolitan city like New York or Montreal for size management reasons, it's not necessary for a midsize city where the main category has just 66 articles after occupational diffusion and the neighborhood category has just eight articles total. While South Omaha was a separate town prior to being annexed by the city in 1915, and some of the people categorized here were alive at that time, I don't see that as enough of a distinction to warrant the category: three of them were still children in 1915, so they were from Regular Omaha by the time they were old enough to vote; two are from Regular Omaha and have no stated or sourced connection to South Omaha anytime prior to the merger; and one is from Regular Omaha and has no stated or sourced connection to South Omaha besides being found there after he was kidnapped. And of the two remainders, one is a living current resident of South Omaha with no claim to being filed here on "he was alive when it was a separate city" grounds. So there's only one person who has a genuinely serious claim on the distinction between "South Omaha the independent town" and "South Omaha the neighborhood within Regular Omaha", in that he was living elsewhere by 1915, and that's not enough to justify a separate category. Bearcat ( talk) 04:04, 25 February 2017 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_25&oldid=1075704927"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 24 February 26 >

February 25

Television series about gender

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 both. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Here is a link to the diffs in case there is scope for a list to be useful. (Apologies for the incorrect link in the edit summaries.) – Fayenatic London 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too broad categories, and they are not defining characteristics of the television series. Almost all television series have at least one female and one male main character. Thousands of TV series have female characters as the main protagonist and even more have a male as the main character. I would be open to a more narrow category, such Category:Television series about women's issues/ Category:Television series about men's issues or Category:Television series about feminism JDDJS ( talk) 23:55, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Television series are not defined by the gender of their leading characters per se (well, okay, maybe Transparent is, but it's already catted as LGBT-related.) As noted, most television series have both male and female characters, and it's completely arbitrary to set a specific percentage threshold beyond which the television series is about the men in it but not about the women in it, or vice versa. To use one example in the women category, while it's certainly true that Betty Suarez was the lead in Ugly Betty, was the series not at least somewhat about Daniel Meade and Marc St. James and Betty's dad and her gay nephew too? Is Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23 purely about the B just because she's the one named in the title, and not partially about Mark Reynolds and Luther Wilson and Eli Webber and "James Van Der Beek" as well? Is I Dream of Jeannie inherently about Jeannie but not about Tony too? Conversely, is The Big Bang Theory strictly "about" Sheldon and Leonard and Howard and Rajesh, and not at least partially also about Penny? There are really very few television series at all that are purely about men or purely about women without any members of the other gender in the character mix as well — so there's no way to populate these categories without committing acts of original research to arbitrarily decide what percentage of "aboutness" each show devotes to its men vs. its women. Bearcat ( talk) 14:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • To be honest, I don't think there is any name that could be given these categories that would preclude their being misused. Bearcat ( talk) 23:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete suffers from the general problems of things "about" categories; how much about the subject must it be, and what reliable source tells us that it's at least that much. Moreover, about "men" or "women" is almost impossibly wide-ranged, do men or women characters make it about that sex? If so, every show except some on animal planet would likely be in one or the other, or both, these categories... Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, this is categorizing by a characteristic that is too broad (as nom said) and trivial (in my own words). Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:27, 6 March 2017 (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:American crime drama 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: keep for now without prejudice to renominating together with parent Category:Crime drama television series and siblings. Marcocapelle ( talk) 00:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Basically all crime series are dramas. redundant to have both cats. JDDJS ( talk) 23:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep That's not true - some are comedies. For example Angie Tribeca, which is certainly a crime comedy TV series that is not a drama. Jim Michael ( talk) 23:50, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment That's just one exception. Right now, the two cats are a mess, with some articles being in both cats, and some just in the parent, when they belong in the drama subcat, but if everything was categorized correctly, almost all the articles would be in the drama subcat, with just Angie Tribecea, and two or three other exceptions, being in the main category. If anything, there should be a subcat for the crime comedies, because they are the ones that deviate from the norm. JDDJS ( talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • No, there isn't just one exception. Just because the commenter only mentioned one example doesn't mean no other examples exist. There are a lot of crime sitcoms: Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Sledge Hammer, Car 54 Where Are You, Public Morals, Barney Miller, Police Squad, The Thin Blue Line, Bakersfield PD, Archer, Reno 911...and then crime reality shows like Cops and America's Most Wanted and Cold Case Files. And at any rate, if the correct answer every time some stuff was getting misfiled in a general parent category instead of a more specific subcategory was to delete the subcategory rather than refiling the misfiled stuff, then the entire category system would have imploded into a "one catch-all category for everything" singularity at least a decade ago. Bearcat ( talk) 14:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep, without prejudice against a batch renomination. The nominator does have a potentially valid point (although not necessarily a slamdunk) about whether this is really needed or not — I'm not convinced by that argument as of yet, but nominator is within his right to make it and I'm willing to hear him out. However, that argument doesn't apply solely to this category in isolation, but also affects the entire Category:Crime drama television series category — which has several parallel subcategories for other countries besides the US alone. There's no good reason to treat this category in isolation from its parent tree; we need to either keep them all or delete them all, not to delete this while leaving the rest of the tree intact. Bearcat ( talk) 14:34, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Yes, there'd be no sense in just deleting this subcat.
Articles being in the wrong categories is a commonly used argument to delete cats, but it's not a valid reason. Articles that are in the incorrect cats should be put in the correct cats. Crime drama TV series, such as The Closer are very common and are a distinct genre, which is significantly different to crime comedy TV shows such as Brooklyn Nine-Nine and to crime reality shows such as Cops. Jim Michael ( talk) 22:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge whether it's a drama, a comedy, or a comedo-drama is not overly relevant or distinguishing. Moreover, many of the series in the narrower category are also in the broader one anyway, so if someone were looking for non-drama crime series they'd be flummoxed by the miscategorized articles. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
It's very relevant and distinguishing. Crime dramas such as Without a Trace, Cold Case, The Closer etc. are very different to crime comedies such as Angie Tribeca an Brooklyn Nine-Nine. Those articles that are miscategorised should be put in the correct cats. Jim Michael ( talk) 05:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Three-way intersecting categories are generally not recommended by WP:NARROWCAT, and I think you need a compelling argument to override the guideline. It's one thing to diffuse a genre category into its respective sub-genres (like horror films into slasher films etc) but it's quite another to start arbitrarily crossing over genres because the number of categories will increase exponentially and quickly become unmanageble. Category:American crime television series and Category:American drama television series clearly have this covered and I don't see an organizational benefit in crossing them over. Betty Logan ( talk) 12:48, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
That link makes a good case for this cat to exist. It's not a narrow intersection: there are hundreds of such TV shows. It's a commonplace, popular and mainstream genre combination. It, and its parent cats, are large. Similar cats rightfully exist for other genre combinations - such as Category:American comedy-drama television series. These are distinct and common genre combinations. Jim Michael ( talk) 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The parent categories are not so large that they require diffusing, and on an organizational basis articles should be placed in the most significant category. For example, to most people The Sopranos is a crime series first and foremost, so it is not unreasonable to expect to find it in that category, but diffusing it has taken it out of the category that most people would expect to find it in. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
There's no rule or guideline to say that articles should only be in the most significant category. It's stated in the first sentence and the infobox of The Sopranos that it's an American crime drama, so you'd certainly expect it to be in this cat. Jim Michael ( talk) 02:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The series is about organized crime so the article should be in the crime category. This is just an extra layer of organization for the sake of an extra layer of organization and I don't really see how it helps editors and readers. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Crime drama is distinct from criminal comedy, crime documentaries etc. - as I've already explained in this discussion. That's why it's relevant and why subcatting the crime genre is worthwhile. Jim Michael ( talk) 03:40, 28 February 2017 (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:Avunculicide in fiction

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 00:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a very common theme in fiction JDDJS ( talk) 23:16, 25 February 2017 (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:Gandhi conspirators

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is to clarify and distinguish from other Gandhi assassinations - of Rajiv Gandhi and of Indira Gandhi. The parent category already makes that distinction Brandmeister talk 12:36, 25 February 2017 (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.

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people by location

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/2017 April 26 – the last one separately. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge per WP:NONDEF and WP:SMALLCAT. The voivodeship where these people were born/active is not defining for any of these people. We sometimes categorize people by a non-defining country subdivision if the parent category becomes too big, but that problem does not occur here at all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • There is a huge difference between subdivisions of current countries versus subdivisions of former countries. In the latter case it nearly requires WP:OR to determine from which subdivision someone was, and besides when it's long time ago the subdivision is in most cases entirely irrelevant for that person. 13:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This could be discussed in case by case basis. For some people, their province origin might be quite important. For example, Ducal Lithuanian category refers to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and I have known some Lithuanian editors who felt rather strongly regarding making it clear that a person was not just "Polish", but a Lithuanian from the Grand Duchy as well as a "Pole" from the PLC, through I note we don't seem to have a corresponding category for people from Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. (Ping User:Renata3 here, so we can hear more from a Lithuanian editor here on the usefulness of the Ducal Lithuanian category, for example). OR shouldn't be a problem, as long as we know date and place of birth. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Piotrus and Renata3: It would be less of a problem to distinct Polish from Lithuanian people, but the categories above are much more granular. Knowing date and place of birth is not enough to determine voivodeship, it may also require the study of ancient maps which is OR. People in these categories are not simply known for being from a voivodeship, which is why NONDEF applies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:30, 19 March 2017 (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.

History of Baghdad

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 (where necessary; some of the contents are already in the targets or a more specific sub-cat). – Fayenatic London 11:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one (or occasionally two) articles per category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (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.

National Film Registry categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 18 March 2017 (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:People from North Omaha, Nebraska

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. – Fayenatic London 12:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category with an even weaker justification than the South Omaha category I've nominated below; North Omaha is not described in its article as having been a town or city in its own right at any point in its history, so this is even more of a straight "neighborhood" category. Again, this would make sense if Omaha were the size of New York City and needed borough subcategories for size management purposes -- but if the parent category only has 66 articles in it, then it's not large enough to need diffusion by individual neighborhood. Bearcat ( talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment (which applies equally to the category below): Cat:People from Omaha, Nebraska actually contains a total of about 700 people ( Petscan search), most of them diffused into the occupational sub-categories.
    These people could equally well in a neighbourhood category, so a neighbourhood category scheme for Omaha would be drawing on a much wider pool than the 66 articles mentioned by the nominator, which are merely not already diffused by occupation.
    I don't think that this scheme of merely splitting the city in two is much help, but in principle there is a big enough pool to make neighbourhood categories viable. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with a comment that is also related to the usage of "People from" categories in general. People by location categories make a whole lot of sense in categorizing where people have deserved their notability. The flip-side of that is, for example, if people have deserved their notability at a national level, then categorizing them in a particular city merely causes unnecessary category clutter, at least in my view. (Note that biographies in particular often contain a lot of category clutter.) So this reasoning is a lot stricter than what the people by location categories are used for currently. A similar thing happens in this nomination, but then at a local level: people may have deserved their notability in Omaha in the city as a whole, but the exact place of where they have lived in Omaha has nothing to do with their reason of notability. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:24, 25 February 2017 (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:People from South Omaha, Nebraska

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 as above. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific subcategory for a neighborhood within a city. While subcatting people by borough makes sense in a major metropolitan city like New York or Montreal for size management reasons, it's not necessary for a midsize city where the main category has just 66 articles after occupational diffusion and the neighborhood category has just eight articles total. While South Omaha was a separate town prior to being annexed by the city in 1915, and some of the people categorized here were alive at that time, I don't see that as enough of a distinction to warrant the category: three of them were still children in 1915, so they were from Regular Omaha by the time they were old enough to vote; two are from Regular Omaha and have no stated or sourced connection to South Omaha anytime prior to the merger; and one is from Regular Omaha and has no stated or sourced connection to South Omaha besides being found there after he was kidnapped. And of the two remainders, one is a living current resident of South Omaha with no claim to being filed here on "he was alive when it was a separate city" grounds. So there's only one person who has a genuinely serious claim on the distinction between "South Omaha the independent town" and "South Omaha the neighborhood within Regular Omaha", in that he was living elsewhere by 1915, and that's not enough to justify a separate category. Bearcat ( talk) 04:04, 25 February 2017 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_25&oldid=1075704927"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE