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: Non-
defining category for a subjective criterion. The definition of an
éminence grise is "powerful decision-maker or adviser who operates behind the scenes, or in a non-public or unofficial capacity", and it's undeniable that there have been a few people in history who became notable that way -- but the problem is that the term gets used incredibly subjectively, to encompass a lot more than just the traditional meaning. The people in this category, for example, include
Dick Cheney,
Deng Xiaoping,
Joaquín Balaguer,
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord,
Diego Portales and
José López Rega, all of whom actually held official public positions in their respective countries' governments, as well as a president's communications advisor and (I'm not even kidding about this) a court jester -- and if we define the term that broadly, then this would become a massively unbrowsable megacategory for every politician who ever acted as an advisor or mentor to one of their successors, a good portion of the entire staff of the national leader's office under every government administration everywhere, every high-ranking civil servant in every government department, and even some lobbyists. Accordingly, we should not be categorizing people this way: those who were notable as politicians should be categorized as politicians, and those who were notable as political consultants or advisors should be categorized as advisors or consultants, rather than using a highly subjective and inconsistently-defined term like this.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Per Bearcat. Not all descriptors make good categorization schemes, and this one is far too subjective to be useful as a category. --
Jayron3220:12, 6 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:Forgotten Realms deities
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 category structure is now at a point where the arbitrary splits are unnecessary for organization. There is nothing distinctive enough about the campaign settings in relation to the dieties to need to categorize the characters in such a way.
TTN (
talk)
18:21, 6 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:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) by parliament
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 two categories are identical. They separate the Members of the Parliament of England from the rest of the eighteenth century Members of the Parliament of Great Britain
Rathfelder (
talk)
17:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose The category is useful for containing the subcategories by century. It is not identical to just the 18th century, as England had parliaments going back half a millenium before that. --
Jayron3217:34, 6 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:Members of the Parliament of England (1485–1603)
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.
Oppose - the category is necessary to separate the subcat of MPS from others of the Tudor period. This is how sub-categories work, to bring coherence and order to the parent.
Oculi (
talk)
18:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
We could do the same for the Stuart period, the Elizabethan era and the Victorian era. But isnt it easier to just put the relevant dated subcategries into those categories?
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
(Amended vote) If kept, rename as above. I concur with the comments in the item below this one. The content of this category is a 16th century subcategory, 4 articles 1485-9 and one for 1601. It would be feasible to restructure this by royal house: Late Plantagenet 1266-1399; 15th century (limited to the Houses of Lancaster and York, 1399-1485); Tudor (1485-1603); and Stuart (1603-1707), but if so we ought to remove the existing century categories. If we are to have the suggested Tudor category, the present 16th century category should be merged or copied in. The present structure is highly unsatisfactory. Perhaps with the blocking of
User:Miraclepine, this should be closed as Delete and salt.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:29, 15 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:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) for constituencies in Huntingdonshire
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: Until 1885,
Huntingdonshire was the only constituency that had its borders within any part of the county of the same name, so this name is anachronistic.
ミラP15:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm happy with this, but I would like to remove (pre-1707) from all these categories. The main article is
Parliament of England and we should normally follow that. There is no other Parliament of England. Adding (pre-1707) to all the subcategories makes the name excessively long.
Rathfelder (
talk)
16:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
If it was withdrawn there was, presumably, no decision. I dont see why this category needs a date range but its successors dont.
Rathfelder (
talk)
17:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominating all of them would be a big job, and I have no intention of raising this issue on each one. I'm interested to know how people, and you in particular, feel about it now. I understand your remarks about the text book, but I think I've found a way round it. Almost all the articles are now in categories based on the dates of the parliaments. If individual biographies are categorised this way we may avoid the confusion.
Rathfelder (
talk)
17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The problem is not about one book. That book is mentioned to illustrate a wider problem with the terminology.
The existence of the categories for English MPs by parliament is irrelevant is irrelevant, for the very simple reason that if an editor goes to add a "Category:Members of the Parliament of England for Foo" to a post-1707 MP, that article will not be in any of the "English MPs YYYY-YYYY" categories.
Oppose The nomination is factually wrong: the
borough of Huntingdon was within Huntingdonshire.
I am increasingly alarmed that
Rathfelder and
Miraclepine are engaged in prolific categorisation of MPs despite repeatedly demonstrating a lack of knowledge of even the most immediate pertinent facts, let alone the wider topic. I strongly urge Rathfelder and Miraclepine to desist from further categorisation of MPs. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I agree fully with all BHG's remarks. BHG set up a coherent, concisely named and fully implemented set of MP categories around 2005 and it is distressing to see Rathfelder enthusiastically romping around creating mayhem.
Oculi (
talk)
18:35, 6 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:A Nightmare on Elm Street
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 is a C2D situation - matching the category name to the franchise article. Why is this good? It gives an accurate reflection of what the category is for. This helps both readers and editors find and use the correct category. Sadly, I need to explain this very basic principle.
When a category uses the name of an entry of the franchise, instead of the franchise name, it's unclear if the the category is for
A Nightmare on Elm Street, the first film in the franchise, or for the entire franchise. This gets worse when dealing with sub-categories. Is
Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street characters for characters from the first film, or for the entire franchise, including comics? Are users who are in
Category:Wikipedians interested in Nightmare on Elm Street interested in the first film, or in the entire franchise?
Oh sorry, I had accidentally closed the nomination and wrote it again and didn't notice I forgot to change the type. Yes, this is for a renaming. Thanks! --
Gonnym (
talk)
17:56, 6 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:Veritas (political party) members of the London Assembly
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:no consensus. The only consensus that is possible to determine is that the DAB component should be kept. However, in terms of where the categorized articles belong, the discussion has evolved alongside and become inextricably intertwined with several
otherdiscussions that happened after this discussion was initiated. It seems that the best course forward may be to close this particular discussion as no consensus and start it afresh, should it be deemed necessary. bibliomaniac1504:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge back to
Category:Veritas (political party) politicians. Veritas was a splinter party that existed from 2009 (spilt from UKIP) to 2015 (amalgamate with English Democrats). We have two articles and are unlikely to have more. The London Assembly is a local council and local politicians are generally NN (unless notable for other reasons). This category has 2 articles and is unlikely to have more. This also applies to the MEP sibling category, but that might be merged with one covering "independent MEPs".
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Veritas (political party) politicians It's not clear there were even two members - Peter Hulme-Cross gave contradictory information over the years about whether he ever joined Veritas (the group on the Assembly was more to qualify for funding than anything else). Veritas merged into the English Democrats five years ago so there won't be any more members. It's overkill to have a one or two member category here. The destination should match the party article name.
Timrollpickering (
Talk)
09:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting along with related categories, see below
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon14:40, 6 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.
Veritas politicians
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.
Option B for the same reason that I proposed the move last time: per
WP:CATNAME the standard
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA apply to categories too. A good title has the five following characteristics: recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. The current, shorter title meets the first four. The proposed title sacrifices naturalness, precision* and conciseness for the sake of consistency. The current title scores 4/5; the proposed title scores 2/5: the current title wins.
Opera hat (
talk)
20:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The
WP:PRECISION policy which @
Opera hat cites is part of the policy
WP:Article titles. This is a category, not an article and there is long-standing practice with categories, upheld at squazillions of CFDs over 15 years, that category names place a much higher priority on consistency, so follow the article name including dismabiguators (tho a dab may be added to categories if needed). That retention of disambiguators avoids guessing whether the title of the article is ambiguous in category space, which is why for example we have categories of the form "Sean Citizen (musician) albums", even tho Sean Citizen (musician) is the only musician of that name. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Opera hat, please go read
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. You are prioritising conciseness, but that is only one of five criteria which can be applied. The policy explicitly says "It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others" ... and the convention with categories has for over a decade been that the highest priority is placed on consistency and precision.
The path you want to drag us down would have us evaluating the disambiguators on every eponymous category ... which would be a massive time sink, and make categorisation harder and less accurate. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I understand the point you are making, but to me treating the speedy category move criteria as if they were themselves naming conventions sounds like saying "For the sake of convenience, it is better to stick with a bad title than to spend any time deciding on a better one." WP:NAMINGCRITERIA also says The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, so whether it is a "massive time sink" should not be a factor.
Opera hat (
talk)
15:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Prefer Option A, but either would so. For those not knowing Latin, veritas means truth, so that there may be scope for ambiguity in Option B.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:01, 8 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.
Compositions by writers
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:Viacom Media Networks
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.
Question: Why if the company has changed it's name to "ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks", you are proposing the name be "ViacomCBS television networks"? --
Gonnym (
talk)
15:48, 5 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:Junior Network shows
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: Not sure what was the reasoning behind the creation of this category. The 4 pages in it never mention "Junior Network" even once in the article and the infobox actually list different networks.
Gonnym (
talk)
14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. None of the four articles mention "Junior Network" at all apart from the category declaration itself, and we have no article about anything called
Junior Network — so it's impossible to determine what this even is. And that's before you consider that we only categorize shows for their originating network in their home country, and not for every network in the rest of the world that bought second window rebroadcast rights — and across all four of these series, no two of them even belong to the same originating broadcaster in the first place.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:05, 11 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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-
defining category for a subjective criterion. The definition of an
éminence grise is "powerful decision-maker or adviser who operates behind the scenes, or in a non-public or unofficial capacity", and it's undeniable that there have been a few people in history who became notable that way -- but the problem is that the term gets used incredibly subjectively, to encompass a lot more than just the traditional meaning. The people in this category, for example, include
Dick Cheney,
Deng Xiaoping,
Joaquín Balaguer,
Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord,
Diego Portales and
José López Rega, all of whom actually held official public positions in their respective countries' governments, as well as a president's communications advisor and (I'm not even kidding about this) a court jester -- and if we define the term that broadly, then this would become a massively unbrowsable megacategory for every politician who ever acted as an advisor or mentor to one of their successors, a good portion of the entire staff of the national leader's office under every government administration everywhere, every high-ranking civil servant in every government department, and even some lobbyists. Accordingly, we should not be categorizing people this way: those who were notable as politicians should be categorized as politicians, and those who were notable as political consultants or advisors should be categorized as advisors or consultants, rather than using a highly subjective and inconsistently-defined term like this.
Bearcat (
talk)
20:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Per Bearcat. Not all descriptors make good categorization schemes, and this one is far too subjective to be useful as a category. --
Jayron3220:12, 6 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:Forgotten Realms deities
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 category structure is now at a point where the arbitrary splits are unnecessary for organization. There is nothing distinctive enough about the campaign settings in relation to the dieties to need to categorize the characters in such a way.
TTN (
talk)
18:21, 6 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:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) by parliament
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 two categories are identical. They separate the Members of the Parliament of England from the rest of the eighteenth century Members of the Parliament of Great Britain
Rathfelder (
talk)
17:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose The category is useful for containing the subcategories by century. It is not identical to just the 18th century, as England had parliaments going back half a millenium before that. --
Jayron3217:34, 6 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:Members of the Parliament of England (1485–1603)
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.
Oppose - the category is necessary to separate the subcat of MPS from others of the Tudor period. This is how sub-categories work, to bring coherence and order to the parent.
Oculi (
talk)
18:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
We could do the same for the Stuart period, the Elizabethan era and the Victorian era. But isnt it easier to just put the relevant dated subcategries into those categories?
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
(Amended vote) If kept, rename as above. I concur with the comments in the item below this one. The content of this category is a 16th century subcategory, 4 articles 1485-9 and one for 1601. It would be feasible to restructure this by royal house: Late Plantagenet 1266-1399; 15th century (limited to the Houses of Lancaster and York, 1399-1485); Tudor (1485-1603); and Stuart (1603-1707), but if so we ought to remove the existing century categories. If we are to have the suggested Tudor category, the present 16th century category should be merged or copied in. The present structure is highly unsatisfactory. Perhaps with the blocking of
User:Miraclepine, this should be closed as Delete and salt.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:29, 15 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:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) for constituencies in Huntingdonshire
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: Until 1885,
Huntingdonshire was the only constituency that had its borders within any part of the county of the same name, so this name is anachronistic.
ミラP15:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm happy with this, but I would like to remove (pre-1707) from all these categories. The main article is
Parliament of England and we should normally follow that. There is no other Parliament of England. Adding (pre-1707) to all the subcategories makes the name excessively long.
Rathfelder (
talk)
16:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
If it was withdrawn there was, presumably, no decision. I dont see why this category needs a date range but its successors dont.
Rathfelder (
talk)
17:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominating all of them would be a big job, and I have no intention of raising this issue on each one. I'm interested to know how people, and you in particular, feel about it now. I understand your remarks about the text book, but I think I've found a way round it. Almost all the articles are now in categories based on the dates of the parliaments. If individual biographies are categorised this way we may avoid the confusion.
Rathfelder (
talk)
17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The problem is not about one book. That book is mentioned to illustrate a wider problem with the terminology.
The existence of the categories for English MPs by parliament is irrelevant is irrelevant, for the very simple reason that if an editor goes to add a "Category:Members of the Parliament of England for Foo" to a post-1707 MP, that article will not be in any of the "English MPs YYYY-YYYY" categories.
Oppose The nomination is factually wrong: the
borough of Huntingdon was within Huntingdonshire.
I am increasingly alarmed that
Rathfelder and
Miraclepine are engaged in prolific categorisation of MPs despite repeatedly demonstrating a lack of knowledge of even the most immediate pertinent facts, let alone the wider topic. I strongly urge Rathfelder and Miraclepine to desist from further categorisation of MPs. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I agree fully with all BHG's remarks. BHG set up a coherent, concisely named and fully implemented set of MP categories around 2005 and it is distressing to see Rathfelder enthusiastically romping around creating mayhem.
Oculi (
talk)
18:35, 6 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:A Nightmare on Elm Street
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 is a C2D situation - matching the category name to the franchise article. Why is this good? It gives an accurate reflection of what the category is for. This helps both readers and editors find and use the correct category. Sadly, I need to explain this very basic principle.
When a category uses the name of an entry of the franchise, instead of the franchise name, it's unclear if the the category is for
A Nightmare on Elm Street, the first film in the franchise, or for the entire franchise. This gets worse when dealing with sub-categories. Is
Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street characters for characters from the first film, or for the entire franchise, including comics? Are users who are in
Category:Wikipedians interested in Nightmare on Elm Street interested in the first film, or in the entire franchise?
Oh sorry, I had accidentally closed the nomination and wrote it again and didn't notice I forgot to change the type. Yes, this is for a renaming. Thanks! --
Gonnym (
talk)
17:56, 6 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:Veritas (political party) members of the London Assembly
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:no consensus. The only consensus that is possible to determine is that the DAB component should be kept. However, in terms of where the categorized articles belong, the discussion has evolved alongside and become inextricably intertwined with several
otherdiscussions that happened after this discussion was initiated. It seems that the best course forward may be to close this particular discussion as no consensus and start it afresh, should it be deemed necessary. bibliomaniac1504:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge back to
Category:Veritas (political party) politicians. Veritas was a splinter party that existed from 2009 (spilt from UKIP) to 2015 (amalgamate with English Democrats). We have two articles and are unlikely to have more. The London Assembly is a local council and local politicians are generally NN (unless notable for other reasons). This category has 2 articles and is unlikely to have more. This also applies to the MEP sibling category, but that might be merged with one covering "independent MEPs".
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Veritas (political party) politicians It's not clear there were even two members - Peter Hulme-Cross gave contradictory information over the years about whether he ever joined Veritas (the group on the Assembly was more to qualify for funding than anything else). Veritas merged into the English Democrats five years ago so there won't be any more members. It's overkill to have a one or two member category here. The destination should match the party article name.
Timrollpickering (
Talk)
09:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisting along with related categories, see below
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon14:40, 6 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.
Veritas politicians
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.
Option B for the same reason that I proposed the move last time: per
WP:CATNAME the standard
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA apply to categories too. A good title has the five following characteristics: recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency. The current, shorter title meets the first four. The proposed title sacrifices naturalness, precision* and conciseness for the sake of consistency. The current title scores 4/5; the proposed title scores 2/5: the current title wins.
Opera hat (
talk)
20:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
The
WP:PRECISION policy which @
Opera hat cites is part of the policy
WP:Article titles. This is a category, not an article and there is long-standing practice with categories, upheld at squazillions of CFDs over 15 years, that category names place a much higher priority on consistency, so follow the article name including dismabiguators (tho a dab may be added to categories if needed). That retention of disambiguators avoids guessing whether the title of the article is ambiguous in category space, which is why for example we have categories of the form "Sean Citizen (musician) albums", even tho Sean Citizen (musician) is the only musician of that name. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Opera hat, please go read
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. You are prioritising conciseness, but that is only one of five criteria which can be applied. The policy explicitly says "It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others" ... and the convention with categories has for over a decade been that the highest priority is placed on consistency and precision.
The path you want to drag us down would have us evaluating the disambiguators on every eponymous category ... which would be a massive time sink, and make categorisation harder and less accurate. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)reply
I understand the point you are making, but to me treating the speedy category move criteria as if they were themselves naming conventions sounds like saying "For the sake of convenience, it is better to stick with a bad title than to spend any time deciding on a better one." WP:NAMINGCRITERIA also says The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors, so whether it is a "massive time sink" should not be a factor.
Opera hat (
talk)
15:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Prefer Option A, but either would so. For those not knowing Latin, veritas means truth, so that there may be scope for ambiguity in Option B.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
19:01, 8 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.
Compositions by writers
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:Viacom Media Networks
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.
Question: Why if the company has changed it's name to "ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks", you are proposing the name be "ViacomCBS television networks"? --
Gonnym (
talk)
15:48, 5 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:Junior Network shows
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: Not sure what was the reasoning behind the creation of this category. The 4 pages in it never mention "Junior Network" even once in the article and the infobox actually list different networks.
Gonnym (
talk)
14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. None of the four articles mention "Junior Network" at all apart from the category declaration itself, and we have no article about anything called
Junior Network — so it's impossible to determine what this even is. And that's before you consider that we only categorize shows for their originating network in their home country, and not for every network in the rest of the world that bought second window rebroadcast rights — and across all four of these series, no two of them even belong to the same originating broadcaster in the first place.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:05, 11 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.