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. If you're looking for a lookup template that handles DOIs, this is useful because it segregates DOI templates instead of putting them in a group of 90+ templates. And if you're looking for some other lookup template, it's marginally useful because it excludes the DOI templates from the 80+ templates that you have to look through. Plus, the IP's work demonstrates that DOI templates aren't necessarily for catalogue lookup purposes.
Nyttend (
talk)
22:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)reply
So keep the category for the sake of those familiar with these bots. And in some cases, it's useful to have a category that includes defunct/irrelevant templates; you might want to look at such a template to see how it handled a certain use case.
Nyttend (
talk)
23:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Those who are familiar with those bots is me and JLaTondre and just about no one else, and we don't need that category. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}23:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni
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.
I had as thorough a look as I could when researching the proposal, and as far as I can tell, the only General Staff Academy has been the Russian/Soviet institution(s).
Spokoyni (
talk)
21:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Spokoyni: is there enough evidence that the common name of this institute is "General Staff Academy" rather than the full name? If there is, the article title should be changed as well. We are mostly trying to keep article names and category names consistent with each other.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
This would be an instance where trying to keep article names and category names identical would be misleading. Any category name that includes 'Russia' in some form is ahistorical for all graduates from its formation in 1936, up until it changed from a Soviet institution to purely a Russian one in 1991, as much as 'Soviet' is for all graduates after 1991. 'Russia' should never be a shorthand for 'Soviet'. Using 'Russia' as some form of category disambiguation only works if there is a distinction between the Soviet and Russian period, hence the suggestion of "
Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni for graduates of the 1936-1991 Soviet period, and
Category:General Staff Academy (Russia) alumni for graduates since 1991". This follows the precedent of
Category:Turkish Military Academy alumni and
Category:Ottoman Military Academy alumni with the article on the academy at the current name of
Turkish Military Academy. Alternatively use a category name that does not force a historical period on articles placed in it, like
Category:General Staff Academy alumni. Finding a common name to try and move the article to is fraught with difficulty when considering the many different ways English speakers can translate and shorten clunky Russian proper names like Военная академия Генерального штаба Вооружённых сил Российской Федерации, let alone its full name which translates to "Federal State Treasury Military Educational Institution of Higher Education Military Order of Lenin, Red Banner, Orders of Suvorov and Kutuzov Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation".
This academic article for instance uses five different variations in just its title and opening paragraph. (Military Academy of the General Staff, Russian General Staff Military Academy, Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Military Academy, Academy of the General Staff).
Spokoyni (
talk)
07:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes that sounds very reasonable. Btw previously I thought that the institute changed their name in 1991 from the shorter to the longer version so now I understand the situation better.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:North Warwickshire District
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep, on the basis we tend towards using the COMMONNAME rather than the pedantically correct full name. Renaming the categories will make them more difficult to find.
Sionk (
talk)
19:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Let's comply with naming conventions. My first thought was "People from North Warwickshire", but I guess this is a good example of why we need category names to be more precise. Maybe Englishmen would know better, but foreigners like me might see it as a category for people from northern Warwickshire and end up putting people into it that don't belong (analogous to "People from
North East, Pennsylvania" versus "People from
Northeastern Pennsylvania"), so this ought to have a longer and less ambiguous name.
Nyttend (
talk)
11:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
North Warwickshire wouldn't usually be mentioned, only Warwickshire or a place in Warwickshire. It's possible that people could look at a map to find where the place mentioned in an article is (if it doesn't have its own article or category), but unlikely.
Category:People from West Virginia is similar.
Peter James (
talk)
14:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No disambiguation is needed - it's similar to
Category:North Yorkshire,
Category:North Berwick,
Category:North Macedonia and many more (even names that are more likely to be misunderstood - where there is ambiguity with post towns such as Manchester and postal counties such as South Yorkshire - are not disambiguated). Other discussions had almost no participation - If I had noticed them, I would have opposed most, which would have made it no consensus just as it was for North Somerset.
Peter James (
talk)
18:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Those names are (like WV) well known units that people are unlikely to confuse, almost nobody would know what district a settlement is in (unless perhaps they live there and I hadn't heard of the district I live in until 2008 when I looked at a map) to most people "North Warwickshire" would probbaly mean the northern part of the county not a specific unit. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
18:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Which is why categories have pages where descriptions can be added. The "northern part of the county" wouldn't have a category unless it could be defined clearly. North Berwick isn't particularly well known, and people could guess it was part of Berwick, and there are places in North Yorkshire that I would have guessed were in South Yorkshire - some parts are closer to Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire than they are to York.
Peter James (
talk)
19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and sports
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: This "and sports" category duplicates the functionality of the "impact" category with no greater utility. There is no other content other than that found in the "impact" category and one parent category that could be added to the "impact" category ("category: Health and sport") --
67.70.32.186 (
talk)
17:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment You're not supposed to do that in the middle of a discussion. Further, I don't think a categoryredirect is necessary nor appropriate. --
67.70.32.186 (
talk)
00:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Events cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
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: Many many events have been cancelled by the pandemic. But there are a larger number of events in a supercat that have either been cancelled, postponed or have found alternate venues but otherwise still affected by the pandemic, so it would seem to be better to catalog all such events this way, and use the cat "Cancelled events" as the intersection for those outright cancelled, or alternatively a separate subcat for cancelled events.
Masem (
t)
16:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Aha was not aware of that cat. I will create a "events impacted" supercat, that will include both "cancelled" and "postponed". I don't know if this can be quickclosed then or not. --
Masem (
t)
17:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes if that category didn't exist I'd argue that the scope was unclear since some might interpret "cancelled" to also include postponed. Though there will probbaly be many cases where an event is postponed and later cancelled completely or where a cancelled event is later given another time slot. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
18:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: discussion may be affected by the outcome of {{section link|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 19|Category:Events cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic]].
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:After Dark (British TV series) hosts
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.
I am the editor who created these categories, after reading about the rules and taking advice from more experienced editors about how to do this. I apologise if I got things wrong. However may I add a little:--
a/ As I have said elsewhere, I have been editing for over ten years but only sporadically and not with great expertise, and none at all in the creation of categories. However nothing I have done has ever resulted in a nomination for deletion, so I am also new to this process (eg I see the nomination gets a line in bold type, don't know what I am supposed to do by way of response).
b/ I only created this category on the encouragement of people who have been in touch (film and television archive researchers) who said that such a category page would be of use to them. I admit that I thought this was uncontroversial, again apologies.
c/ The editor proposing the deletion -
User:Graham87 - has written on my Talk page: When creating categories (or anything on Wikipedia), it's a good idea to model their structure on existing well-established pages. This is exactly what I did.
e/ A perhaps useful example is
Category:Big Brother (British TV series) contestants, which seems a more-or-less exact parallel (this page has been stable for a number of years). There is only one significant difference between this category and the one I created: most if not all of the Big Brother "contestants" differ from the After Dark "participants" in that they were relatively unknown before appearing on the programme, which is not in general the case with the usually already notable After Dark guests. That does not seem a significant or relevant distinction to me, again perhaps I am wrong.
f/ The editor proposing the deletion goes on to write: For what it's worth, I'd never heard of After Dark until an hour ago. The point is surely primarily one of simple fact: the leading UK trade paper wrote in 2010 that "After Dark defined the first 10 years of Channel 4, just as Big Brother did for the second", just one example of many plaudits this significant series has received over the last decades. Might I suggest that although the editor's ignorance of the programme may fuel his "scepticism" (the word he uses), that is simply a reflection of what one person knows or does not know and is not really relevant to the issue of categories.
g/ Finally I would be grateful for guidance as to how to oppose the proposed deletion - or alternatively, how best to deal with all the other British tv categories which do exactly the same job in the same way.
Delete as offending
WP:OC#PERF. Big Brother contestants seem to have been allowed, because many of the are NN except for this. The one example I checked did not even mention the series in the article. In this case the participants (guests) are frequently well known politicians or activists, who are notable for other reasons than appearing in a TV series over 15 years ago. There is already a very long article on the series, which lists many of the hosts. I would not abject to a LIST article of the 238 participants, but having categories leads to the complaint of category clutter, the basis for the normal prohibition on performance by performer categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping, but I do not know enough about categorization to offer an informed opinion. As I wrote on the Help Desk: I am not sure, however, of the naming conventions for categories, what the appropriate parent cat(s) would be, or whether such a category would be considered useful by the general community.
TigraanClick here to contact me09:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:After Dark (British TV series) participants
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.
Delete performance category, and not defining. A few of the bios I looked at not only didn't mention it in the lead, but didn't mention it at all.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
As I have said before in this discussion, I am new to categories so please forgive my puzzlement. Plenty of Wikipedia biographical articles include categories about the sexuality of the subject. Yet this rarely makes the lead and may not even appear (in any direct way) in the body of the article. For example some of the articles in
Category:LGBT people from England.
How is this categorisation (which seems well established and so presumably meets the approval of category specialists) different? Is it that sexuality is fixed - or at least long term - whereas a tv appearance, however extended, is restricted to a one-off event?
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:Belgian comics titles
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: The distinction between these two seems to be minimal, if one exists. No opinion on whether the merge should be in this direction or reversed. If the distinction is that "comic strips" should only be used for newspaper comics (which may be the more American meaning of the word, but not how most Europeans probably understand it), then this needs to be made clear and many comics removed from the "strip" category. Otherwise, my preference is to keep the "comic strips" article for all series, and merge to "comics titles" one to it, as "comic strips" is the more "natural", commonly used name for these IMO.
Fram (
talk)
08:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
But that ssecond type is what we have
Category:Belgian comics magazines for. "Comics titles" is an extremely vague concept (we don't have an article for it!) See the disambiguation
Comic magazine, which lists all kinds of names for these things, but not "comics title". You may be right that I shouldn't restrict this discussion to just the "Belgian" ones, but simply keeping them as is seems wrong.
Fram (
talk)
10:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
? I don't see the relevance? Yes, the more cats you add, the more complicated this becomes, but it doesn't change the fundamental issue(s): there are no clear inclusion criteria for either category, "comics titles" is not a standard term, and what you (or precedent) seems to imply is that "comics titles" should be restricted to what is in fact already in the cat for Belgian comics magazines. Purely looking at the Belgian situation, we have three categories, but only two types of articles to populate them with? Right? So one of the three needs to go.
Fram (
talk)
11:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, "Belgian comics" is the parent cat, combining series, magazines, artists, museums, ... so that one is not a problem I think.
Fram (
talk)
16:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Personally I would abandon the entire Comic strips category altogether in favour of Category:Comics titles. Because in the English-language world there is a clear distinction between comic strips (everything that appears in a newspaper) and comics (superhero comics), which doesn't exist in most other comics cultures, where both are all just comics. There are constant debates which comics could be considered comic strips and which comics, with usually graphic novels being thrown in the comics category. I think it would be better to use Category: Comics titles for all these specific comics titles. -
User:Kjell Knudde, 10:30, 21 March 2020 (CET).
Oppose Clearly not every title is a comic strip (a strip of comic panels). Unless you consider all comics that are not single-panel comics to be "comic strips", but there are still single-panel comics or comic books with single panels a page as a compilation of single panels. Some of them are graphic novels or novel series comic books, which many would not classify as just a comic strip. Thus is it wrong to merge into the comic strip category. --
67.70.32.186 (
talk)
00:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)reply
There is a separate category for graphic novels, there is no request to merge these in either category here. "Comic strips" is the standard term and straight translations for all Belgian comics though, these are "stripverhalen" ("strip stories") in Dutch, and "bandes dessinées" ("drawn strips") in French, even though cerainly in French most appeared in magazines with multiple pages per week, not in newspapers. In Flanders, these appeared in newspapers in half pages per day, not in actual "strips" either. In either case, we now have nearly duplicate categories, so a solution in some direction is needed.
Fram (
talk)
08:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Belgian comics are nothing like comic strips. I wonder of "comic strips" may be a bad translation of Bandes dessinées in this case. I also agree that titles is weird here, but the proposed target is not an improvement. I'm all in favour of using "comics" as the umbrella term for both comic strips and bande dessinée.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree to the latter as well, the distinction is blurry as many succesful comics started as a comic strip in a newspaper and later became published as books of their own.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Shetty's Police Universe
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:Sesame Street Grouches
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:Number-one albums
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 all – There are over 100 number one singles categories of many countries at
Category:Number-one singles including subcats (for example many Billboard number one categories at
Category:Number-one singles in the United States). Number one songs and albums are important massive achievements and these number one categories were created way back in the early days of Wikipedia. Very useful and informative; I wouldn't call this overcategorization. If we have had number one categories for singles for many years, why not albums.
Hiddenstranger (
talk)
09:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Re "informative": the place for people (i.e. readers) to go for information is the text of articles (including lists) where it can be referenced (
WP:V). Re "why not": see
WP:OSE. DexDor(talk)12:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Most of these are merely providing an unnecessary category level for a single subcat: "Lists of …". The main exception is
Category:United Kingdom number-one albums by chart. but it is probably duplicating something similar. The main reason why the records themselves are not allowed in such categories is that they create category-clutter. The effect is similar to
WP:OC#PERF.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. If you're looking for a lookup template that handles DOIs, this is useful because it segregates DOI templates instead of putting them in a group of 90+ templates. And if you're looking for some other lookup template, it's marginally useful because it excludes the DOI templates from the 80+ templates that you have to look through. Plus, the IP's work demonstrates that DOI templates aren't necessarily for catalogue lookup purposes.
Nyttend (
talk)
22:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)reply
So keep the category for the sake of those familiar with these bots. And in some cases, it's useful to have a category that includes defunct/irrelevant templates; you might want to look at such a template to see how it handled a certain use case.
Nyttend (
talk)
23:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Those who are familiar with those bots is me and JLaTondre and just about no one else, and we don't need that category. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}23:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni
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.
I had as thorough a look as I could when researching the proposal, and as far as I can tell, the only General Staff Academy has been the Russian/Soviet institution(s).
Spokoyni (
talk)
21:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Spokoyni: is there enough evidence that the common name of this institute is "General Staff Academy" rather than the full name? If there is, the article title should be changed as well. We are mostly trying to keep article names and category names consistent with each other.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:24, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
This would be an instance where trying to keep article names and category names identical would be misleading. Any category name that includes 'Russia' in some form is ahistorical for all graduates from its formation in 1936, up until it changed from a Soviet institution to purely a Russian one in 1991, as much as 'Soviet' is for all graduates after 1991. 'Russia' should never be a shorthand for 'Soviet'. Using 'Russia' as some form of category disambiguation only works if there is a distinction between the Soviet and Russian period, hence the suggestion of "
Category:General Staff Academy (Soviet Union) alumni for graduates of the 1936-1991 Soviet period, and
Category:General Staff Academy (Russia) alumni for graduates since 1991". This follows the precedent of
Category:Turkish Military Academy alumni and
Category:Ottoman Military Academy alumni with the article on the academy at the current name of
Turkish Military Academy. Alternatively use a category name that does not force a historical period on articles placed in it, like
Category:General Staff Academy alumni. Finding a common name to try and move the article to is fraught with difficulty when considering the many different ways English speakers can translate and shorten clunky Russian proper names like Военная академия Генерального штаба Вооружённых сил Российской Федерации, let alone its full name which translates to "Federal State Treasury Military Educational Institution of Higher Education Military Order of Lenin, Red Banner, Orders of Suvorov and Kutuzov Academy of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation".
This academic article for instance uses five different variations in just its title and opening paragraph. (Military Academy of the General Staff, Russian General Staff Military Academy, Military Academy of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, Military Academy, Academy of the General Staff).
Spokoyni (
talk)
07:22, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes that sounds very reasonable. Btw previously I thought that the institute changed their name in 1991 from the shorter to the longer version so now I understand the situation better.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:10, 30 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:North Warwickshire District
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep, on the basis we tend towards using the COMMONNAME rather than the pedantically correct full name. Renaming the categories will make them more difficult to find.
Sionk (
talk)
19:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Let's comply with naming conventions. My first thought was "People from North Warwickshire", but I guess this is a good example of why we need category names to be more precise. Maybe Englishmen would know better, but foreigners like me might see it as a category for people from northern Warwickshire and end up putting people into it that don't belong (analogous to "People from
North East, Pennsylvania" versus "People from
Northeastern Pennsylvania"), so this ought to have a longer and less ambiguous name.
Nyttend (
talk)
11:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
North Warwickshire wouldn't usually be mentioned, only Warwickshire or a place in Warwickshire. It's possible that people could look at a map to find where the place mentioned in an article is (if it doesn't have its own article or category), but unlikely.
Category:People from West Virginia is similar.
Peter James (
talk)
14:45, 3 April 2020 (UTC)reply
No disambiguation is needed - it's similar to
Category:North Yorkshire,
Category:North Berwick,
Category:North Macedonia and many more (even names that are more likely to be misunderstood - where there is ambiguity with post towns such as Manchester and postal counties such as South Yorkshire - are not disambiguated). Other discussions had almost no participation - If I had noticed them, I would have opposed most, which would have made it no consensus just as it was for North Somerset.
Peter James (
talk)
18:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Those names are (like WV) well known units that people are unlikely to confuse, almost nobody would know what district a settlement is in (unless perhaps they live there and I hadn't heard of the district I live in until 2008 when I looked at a map) to most people "North Warwickshire" would probbaly mean the northern part of the county not a specific unit. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
18:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Which is why categories have pages where descriptions can be added. The "northern part of the county" wouldn't have a category unless it could be defined clearly. North Berwick isn't particularly well known, and people could guess it was part of Berwick, and there are places in North Yorkshire that I would have guessed were in South Yorkshire - some parts are closer to Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire than they are to York.
Peter James (
talk)
19:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and sports
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: This "and sports" category duplicates the functionality of the "impact" category with no greater utility. There is no other content other than that found in the "impact" category and one parent category that could be added to the "impact" category ("category: Health and sport") --
67.70.32.186 (
talk)
17:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment You're not supposed to do that in the middle of a discussion. Further, I don't think a categoryredirect is necessary nor appropriate. --
67.70.32.186 (
talk)
00:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Events cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic
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: Many many events have been cancelled by the pandemic. But there are a larger number of events in a supercat that have either been cancelled, postponed or have found alternate venues but otherwise still affected by the pandemic, so it would seem to be better to catalog all such events this way, and use the cat "Cancelled events" as the intersection for those outright cancelled, or alternatively a separate subcat for cancelled events.
Masem (
t)
16:52, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Aha was not aware of that cat. I will create a "events impacted" supercat, that will include both "cancelled" and "postponed". I don't know if this can be quickclosed then or not. --
Masem (
t)
17:57, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes if that category didn't exist I'd argue that the scope was unclear since some might interpret "cancelled" to also include postponed. Though there will probbaly be many cases where an event is postponed and later cancelled completely or where a cancelled event is later given another time slot. Crouch, Swale (
talk)
18:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment: discussion may be affected by the outcome of {{section link|Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 19|Category:Events cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic]].
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:After Dark (British TV series) hosts
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.
I am the editor who created these categories, after reading about the rules and taking advice from more experienced editors about how to do this. I apologise if I got things wrong. However may I add a little:--
a/ As I have said elsewhere, I have been editing for over ten years but only sporadically and not with great expertise, and none at all in the creation of categories. However nothing I have done has ever resulted in a nomination for deletion, so I am also new to this process (eg I see the nomination gets a line in bold type, don't know what I am supposed to do by way of response).
b/ I only created this category on the encouragement of people who have been in touch (film and television archive researchers) who said that such a category page would be of use to them. I admit that I thought this was uncontroversial, again apologies.
c/ The editor proposing the deletion -
User:Graham87 - has written on my Talk page: When creating categories (or anything on Wikipedia), it's a good idea to model their structure on existing well-established pages. This is exactly what I did.
e/ A perhaps useful example is
Category:Big Brother (British TV series) contestants, which seems a more-or-less exact parallel (this page has been stable for a number of years). There is only one significant difference between this category and the one I created: most if not all of the Big Brother "contestants" differ from the After Dark "participants" in that they were relatively unknown before appearing on the programme, which is not in general the case with the usually already notable After Dark guests. That does not seem a significant or relevant distinction to me, again perhaps I am wrong.
f/ The editor proposing the deletion goes on to write: For what it's worth, I'd never heard of After Dark until an hour ago. The point is surely primarily one of simple fact: the leading UK trade paper wrote in 2010 that "After Dark defined the first 10 years of Channel 4, just as Big Brother did for the second", just one example of many plaudits this significant series has received over the last decades. Might I suggest that although the editor's ignorance of the programme may fuel his "scepticism" (the word he uses), that is simply a reflection of what one person knows or does not know and is not really relevant to the issue of categories.
g/ Finally I would be grateful for guidance as to how to oppose the proposed deletion - or alternatively, how best to deal with all the other British tv categories which do exactly the same job in the same way.
Delete as offending
WP:OC#PERF. Big Brother contestants seem to have been allowed, because many of the are NN except for this. The one example I checked did not even mention the series in the article. In this case the participants (guests) are frequently well known politicians or activists, who are notable for other reasons than appearing in a TV series over 15 years ago. There is already a very long article on the series, which lists many of the hosts. I would not abject to a LIST article of the 238 participants, but having categories leads to the complaint of category clutter, the basis for the normal prohibition on performance by performer categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:36, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for the ping, but I do not know enough about categorization to offer an informed opinion. As I wrote on the Help Desk: I am not sure, however, of the naming conventions for categories, what the appropriate parent cat(s) would be, or whether such a category would be considered useful by the general community.
TigraanClick here to contact me09:31, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:After Dark (British TV series) participants
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.
Delete performance category, and not defining. A few of the bios I looked at not only didn't mention it in the lead, but didn't mention it at all.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
20:22, 20 March 2020 (UTC)reply
As I have said before in this discussion, I am new to categories so please forgive my puzzlement. Plenty of Wikipedia biographical articles include categories about the sexuality of the subject. Yet this rarely makes the lead and may not even appear (in any direct way) in the body of the article. For example some of the articles in
Category:LGBT people from England.
How is this categorisation (which seems well established and so presumably meets the approval of category specialists) different? Is it that sexuality is fixed - or at least long term - whereas a tv appearance, however extended, is restricted to a one-off event?
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:Belgian comics titles
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: The distinction between these two seems to be minimal, if one exists. No opinion on whether the merge should be in this direction or reversed. If the distinction is that "comic strips" should only be used for newspaper comics (which may be the more American meaning of the word, but not how most Europeans probably understand it), then this needs to be made clear and many comics removed from the "strip" category. Otherwise, my preference is to keep the "comic strips" article for all series, and merge to "comics titles" one to it, as "comic strips" is the more "natural", commonly used name for these IMO.
Fram (
talk)
08:26, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
But that ssecond type is what we have
Category:Belgian comics magazines for. "Comics titles" is an extremely vague concept (we don't have an article for it!) See the disambiguation
Comic magazine, which lists all kinds of names for these things, but not "comics title". You may be right that I shouldn't restrict this discussion to just the "Belgian" ones, but simply keeping them as is seems wrong.
Fram (
talk)
10:25, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
? I don't see the relevance? Yes, the more cats you add, the more complicated this becomes, but it doesn't change the fundamental issue(s): there are no clear inclusion criteria for either category, "comics titles" is not a standard term, and what you (or precedent) seems to imply is that "comics titles" should be restricted to what is in fact already in the cat for Belgian comics magazines. Purely looking at the Belgian situation, we have three categories, but only two types of articles to populate them with? Right? So one of the three needs to go.
Fram (
talk)
11:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Well, "Belgian comics" is the parent cat, combining series, magazines, artists, museums, ... so that one is not a problem I think.
Fram (
talk)
16:30, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Personally I would abandon the entire Comic strips category altogether in favour of Category:Comics titles. Because in the English-language world there is a clear distinction between comic strips (everything that appears in a newspaper) and comics (superhero comics), which doesn't exist in most other comics cultures, where both are all just comics. There are constant debates which comics could be considered comic strips and which comics, with usually graphic novels being thrown in the comics category. I think it would be better to use Category: Comics titles for all these specific comics titles. -
User:Kjell Knudde, 10:30, 21 March 2020 (CET).
Oppose Clearly not every title is a comic strip (a strip of comic panels). Unless you consider all comics that are not single-panel comics to be "comic strips", but there are still single-panel comics or comic books with single panels a page as a compilation of single panels. Some of them are graphic novels or novel series comic books, which many would not classify as just a comic strip. Thus is it wrong to merge into the comic strip category. --
67.70.32.186 (
talk)
00:39, 22 March 2020 (UTC)reply
There is a separate category for graphic novels, there is no request to merge these in either category here. "Comic strips" is the standard term and straight translations for all Belgian comics though, these are "stripverhalen" ("strip stories") in Dutch, and "bandes dessinées" ("drawn strips") in French, even though cerainly in French most appeared in magazines with multiple pages per week, not in newspapers. In Flanders, these appeared in newspapers in half pages per day, not in actual "strips" either. In either case, we now have nearly duplicate categories, so a solution in some direction is needed.
Fram (
talk)
08:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Belgian comics are nothing like comic strips. I wonder of "comic strips" may be a bad translation of Bandes dessinées in this case. I also agree that titles is weird here, but the proposed target is not an improvement. I'm all in favour of using "comics" as the umbrella term for both comic strips and bande dessinée.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:46, 26 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I agree to the latter as well, the distinction is blurry as many succesful comics started as a comic strip in a newspaper and later became published as books of their own.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Shetty's Police Universe
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:Sesame Street Grouches
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:Number-one albums
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 all – There are over 100 number one singles categories of many countries at
Category:Number-one singles including subcats (for example many Billboard number one categories at
Category:Number-one singles in the United States). Number one songs and albums are important massive achievements and these number one categories were created way back in the early days of Wikipedia. Very useful and informative; I wouldn't call this overcategorization. If we have had number one categories for singles for many years, why not albums.
Hiddenstranger (
talk)
09:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Re "informative": the place for people (i.e. readers) to go for information is the text of articles (including lists) where it can be referenced (
WP:V). Re "why not": see
WP:OSE. DexDor(talk)12:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Most of these are merely providing an unnecessary category level for a single subcat: "Lists of …". The main exception is
Category:United Kingdom number-one albums by chart. but it is probably duplicating something similar. The main reason why the records themselves are not allowed in such categories is that they create category-clutter. The effect is similar to
WP:OC#PERF.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.