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 following subcategories of
Category:Wikipedia essays use either "Wikipedia essays on XYZ" or "Wikipedia essays about XYZ". They should be standardized to use a common naming structure, either "on" or "about". I am currently tagging them. I have tagged them all. Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
23:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Well, is this creating an actual problem? People write the same thing in different ways, is all; English is not a programming language. I actually don't care either way. If you want to standardize, and you're willing to do the work to implement this, fine. As to "about" vs "on", I don't care. Whichever gets the most votes. If I had to vote, I guess "about", since "on" could be misunderstood by ELS people with indifferent English skills.
Herostratus (
talk)
02:29, 17 May 2019 (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:Correspondents
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.
Nominator's rationale: Name is misleading. Its intended for journalists, not people who write letters. I've removed Voltaire and Boswell.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into the parent category as needed - The reason we have a problem here is because somebody came along 5 years ago and created a new category that wasn't needed and never should have been created. It's no accident that the parent cat -- which has done the job very nicely since 2004! -- is called Category:Reporters and correspondents. Precisely because there is no clear-cut, agreed upon distinction between the two. In short, there's no more reason to have a separate category for Correspondents than there is to have a separate category for Reporters. I think that pretty much covers it.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
07:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Reporters and correspondents. There might be a valid basis for a new foreign correspondents category, but just renaming this one doesn't fill that niche — not everybody who's been filed here was actually a foreign correspondent at all, so not everybody would belong in that new category. We already have
Category:Reporters and correspondents, and in a journalism context it's very difficult to tease out a meaningful or defining distinction between those two terms — there is one in theory, in that technically a "correspondent" is a specialist in a specific subject while a "reporter" is a generalist who can be assigned to any story that doesn't fall under a correspondent's domain, but it's not widely observed in actual daily practice or even necessarily always possible to determine which side of that line any given journalist actually falls on, with the result that the vast majority of journalists would just get filed in both categories simultaneously. So this is just an unhelpful reduplication of another category that already existed, and the proposed renaming doesn't fix the problem since not everybody filed here would actually belong there. The question of whether we can justify a dedicated
Category:Foreign correspondents category or not should be divorced from this, and considered and/or implemented separately from the conclusion here.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:01, 8 May 2019 (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.
Educational organizations
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 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:Puerto Rican political analysts
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 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:Duplass Brothers Television
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 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:Cultural depictions of men
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.
Nominator's rationale: Note that this is a purge nomination and not a deletion listing. These categories are meant for articles and categories that have "cultural depictions of..." (or similar wording) in their names, and have usage notes that explicitly clarify that they're not meant to be used for every individual creative work that happens to have men or women in it, but they both have a tendency to keep attracting exactly the films and TV shows and video games and songs they're not meant for. Since every film or TV show has men and/or women in it, and so do a large proportion of video games and songs, this isn't a useful point of categorization for individual creative works. I'm not proposing that the categories be deleted outright, because they do have other legitimate content that belongs, but the articles about individual works of film, TV, video gaming or music need to be purged.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Hah, I did see those, but I don't see a real issue there, since both articles are articles about male individuals. I think we can tolerate a teeny bit of imperfection here.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
02:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)reply
No guarantees, but it should cause many editors to wonder about the presence of that word, especially if they've ever come across such articles and/or categories previously. After the categories are purged it should be readily apparent from what remains that they're intended for articles that are largely or entirely about cultural depictions of specified individuals -- as contrasted with articles about men or women in general or articles where somebody gets a passing mention.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
02:40, 10 May 2019 (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 in Midrashim
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 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.
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 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:MTR stations named from roads
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.
Keep: Are the editors very free recently to deal with deletion suggestions?
Category:MTR stations is a summarized category while this one is a detailed one. It also tallies with its Chinese version.
Prince Edward, Hong Kong is NOT place name which is a part of
Mongkok. Not only you are confused about the source of the naming, so this is the reason why this category shall be reserved.
Ckh3111 (
talk)
Delete. The question of whether a station was named for a road, a housing estate or a temple is not a
defining characteristic of the stations for the purposes of categorizing them. Nominator is entirely correct: stations named for buildings are still located on roads, and stations named for roads are still next to other buildings, so subcategorizing them by how they got the name they were given is not navigationally useful to the reader.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:39, 7 May 2019 (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:Festivals named after magazines
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 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.
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 following subcategories of
Category:Wikipedia essays use either "Wikipedia essays on XYZ" or "Wikipedia essays about XYZ". They should be standardized to use a common naming structure, either "on" or "about". I am currently tagging them. I have tagged them all. Thanks, --
DannyS712 (
talk)
23:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Well, is this creating an actual problem? People write the same thing in different ways, is all; English is not a programming language. I actually don't care either way. If you want to standardize, and you're willing to do the work to implement this, fine. As to "about" vs "on", I don't care. Whichever gets the most votes. If I had to vote, I guess "about", since "on" could be misunderstood by ELS people with indifferent English skills.
Herostratus (
talk)
02:29, 17 May 2019 (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:Correspondents
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.
Nominator's rationale: Name is misleading. Its intended for journalists, not people who write letters. I've removed Voltaire and Boswell.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge into the parent category as needed - The reason we have a problem here is because somebody came along 5 years ago and created a new category that wasn't needed and never should have been created. It's no accident that the parent cat -- which has done the job very nicely since 2004! -- is called Category:Reporters and correspondents. Precisely because there is no clear-cut, agreed upon distinction between the two. In short, there's no more reason to have a separate category for Correspondents than there is to have a separate category for Reporters. I think that pretty much covers it.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
07:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Reporters and correspondents. There might be a valid basis for a new foreign correspondents category, but just renaming this one doesn't fill that niche — not everybody who's been filed here was actually a foreign correspondent at all, so not everybody would belong in that new category. We already have
Category:Reporters and correspondents, and in a journalism context it's very difficult to tease out a meaningful or defining distinction between those two terms — there is one in theory, in that technically a "correspondent" is a specialist in a specific subject while a "reporter" is a generalist who can be assigned to any story that doesn't fall under a correspondent's domain, but it's not widely observed in actual daily practice or even necessarily always possible to determine which side of that line any given journalist actually falls on, with the result that the vast majority of journalists would just get filed in both categories simultaneously. So this is just an unhelpful reduplication of another category that already existed, and the proposed renaming doesn't fix the problem since not everybody filed here would actually belong there. The question of whether we can justify a dedicated
Category:Foreign correspondents category or not should be divorced from this, and considered and/or implemented separately from the conclusion here.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:01, 8 May 2019 (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.
Educational organizations
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 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:Puerto Rican political analysts
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 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:Duplass Brothers Television
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 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:Cultural depictions of men
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.
Nominator's rationale: Note that this is a purge nomination and not a deletion listing. These categories are meant for articles and categories that have "cultural depictions of..." (or similar wording) in their names, and have usage notes that explicitly clarify that they're not meant to be used for every individual creative work that happens to have men or women in it, but they both have a tendency to keep attracting exactly the films and TV shows and video games and songs they're not meant for. Since every film or TV show has men and/or women in it, and so do a large proportion of video games and songs, this isn't a useful point of categorization for individual creative works. I'm not proposing that the categories be deleted outright, because they do have other legitimate content that belongs, but the articles about individual works of film, TV, video gaming or music need to be purged.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)reply
Hah, I did see those, but I don't see a real issue there, since both articles are articles about male individuals. I think we can tolerate a teeny bit of imperfection here.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
02:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)reply
No guarantees, but it should cause many editors to wonder about the presence of that word, especially if they've ever come across such articles and/or categories previously. After the categories are purged it should be readily apparent from what remains that they're intended for articles that are largely or entirely about cultural depictions of specified individuals -- as contrasted with articles about men or women in general or articles where somebody gets a passing mention.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
02:40, 10 May 2019 (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 in Midrashim
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 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.
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 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:MTR stations named from roads
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.
Keep: Are the editors very free recently to deal with deletion suggestions?
Category:MTR stations is a summarized category while this one is a detailed one. It also tallies with its Chinese version.
Prince Edward, Hong Kong is NOT place name which is a part of
Mongkok. Not only you are confused about the source of the naming, so this is the reason why this category shall be reserved.
Ckh3111 (
talk)
Delete. The question of whether a station was named for a road, a housing estate or a temple is not a
defining characteristic of the stations for the purposes of categorizing them. Nominator is entirely correct: stations named for buildings are still located on roads, and stations named for roads are still next to other buildings, so subcategorizing them by how they got the name they were given is not navigationally useful to the reader.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:39, 7 May 2019 (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:Festivals named after magazines
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 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.