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 rename proposal in the previous CFD is a valid one, I agree with it. I don't really know why "valid" was removed from the title. When you see the name
Category:Wikipedia images in SVG format you would think that it contains all Wikipedia SVG files. However, this isn't the case. There's a minority of SVGs that even uses {{Valid SVG}} or {{Invalid SVG}} for that matter. This fact makes the name of the category very odd.
Jonteemil (
talk)
15:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Jonteemil, removal of the word "valid" from the title could be explained by the suggestion of
Sillyfolkboy in previous CfD: Invalid ones should be placed in the maintenance categories which can be a child of this new category. —
andrybak (
talk)
12:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Sure, one can get a list by clicking what lists here, but the category page layout may display the files in a way that's more useful to some. Just because something could be done, doesn't mean that it must be done. Senator2029“Talk”01:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I originally closed this as a keep (no consensus to rename), but would like to see firmer discussion on what exactly should be done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac1517:51, 20 May 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:WBZ
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: Eponymous category for a local radio and television call sign, without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify special treatment. Four of the five entries here are the television and radio stations that either currently have or previously had "WBZ" as their call signs, which makes this a
WP:SHAREDNAME violation -- and none of the stations are actually still co-owned with each other anymore, so it can't be argued that it's necessary on "common ownership" grounds: we categorize radio and television stations by their current owner, not by past owners. And the only other article here is a single TV series that was produced by WBZ-TV, which isn't enough content to justify a category by itself if everything else in it is just a four-headed eponym. First discussion is not definitive, as only one person actually participated in it besides the nominator and the real problem with it wasn't even identified by that discussion.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:25, 20 May 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:WCVB-TV
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: Eponymous category for an individual television station, populated primarily by individual people who've worked for it in defiance of
WP:PERFCAT. Once they're removed, there are a handful of things left that were nationally syndicated shows or movies in which the station held a production role -- but we still don't categorize syndicated programs by every individual television station that carried them, because that would lead to extreme category bloat, and there aren't nearly enough such shows to make this television station more special than other television stations that aren't getting eponymous categories.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support deletion - I don't think the number of shows/films produced by the station meets
WP:SMALLCAT and I don't think being produced by the station defines any of the purged articles.
SportingFlyerT·C23:28, 23 May 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:KYW-TV
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: Eponymous category for an individual television station, which other than the eponym itself is populated entirely by past or present staff of that station. This is a
WP:PERFCAT violation, however: because people can move around to different television or radio stations over the course of their careers, this would lead to extreme category bloat if people were categorized for every individual television station they had ever worked for.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:58, 20 May 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:Video game cover athletes
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:Pejorative terms for European people
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:YouTube critics and reviewers
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: Are 'critics' and 'reviewers' the same thing? If not, then two categories are needed. Adding 'content' makes it clear that the criticism is not about the platform.
Fuddle (
talk)
03:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment & Keep, I would not rename this Critics of YouTube content (although that could be a category on its own merit, for sure). Also, I'm not sure about Arin Hanson, but this is absolutely a defining category for Anthony Fantano. Category "is for YouTubers who publish video reviews about films, music, video games, etc." It describes their content. Just as there's a "Gaming YouTubers" category for YouTubers who are defined by publishing gaming content, this is for YouTubers who are defined by publishing review content. Easy Keep for me.
Soulbust (
talk)
08:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment and keep. I am an arts reviewer by profession. I am not an art critic. A reviewer gives details of what an be found and an overall analysis; a critic points out the good and bad features of something. The two designations overlap considerably however, so having one category for both makes sense.
Grutness...wha?03:22, 21 May 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.
The rename proposal in the previous CFD is a valid one, I agree with it. I don't really know why "valid" was removed from the title. When you see the name
Category:Wikipedia images in SVG format you would think that it contains all Wikipedia SVG files. However, this isn't the case. There's a minority of SVGs that even uses {{Valid SVG}} or {{Invalid SVG}} for that matter. This fact makes the name of the category very odd.
Jonteemil (
talk)
15:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Jonteemil, removal of the word "valid" from the title could be explained by the suggestion of
Sillyfolkboy in previous CfD: Invalid ones should be placed in the maintenance categories which can be a child of this new category. —
andrybak (
talk)
12:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Sure, one can get a list by clicking what lists here, but the category page layout may display the files in a way that's more useful to some. Just because something could be done, doesn't mean that it must be done. Senator2029“Talk”01:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I originally closed this as a keep (no consensus to rename), but would like to see firmer discussion on what exactly should be done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac1517:51, 20 May 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:WBZ
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: Eponymous category for a local radio and television call sign, without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify special treatment. Four of the five entries here are the television and radio stations that either currently have or previously had "WBZ" as their call signs, which makes this a
WP:SHAREDNAME violation -- and none of the stations are actually still co-owned with each other anymore, so it can't be argued that it's necessary on "common ownership" grounds: we categorize radio and television stations by their current owner, not by past owners. And the only other article here is a single TV series that was produced by WBZ-TV, which isn't enough content to justify a category by itself if everything else in it is just a four-headed eponym. First discussion is not definitive, as only one person actually participated in it besides the nominator and the real problem with it wasn't even identified by that discussion.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:25, 20 May 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:WCVB-TV
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: Eponymous category for an individual television station, populated primarily by individual people who've worked for it in defiance of
WP:PERFCAT. Once they're removed, there are a handful of things left that were nationally syndicated shows or movies in which the station held a production role -- but we still don't categorize syndicated programs by every individual television station that carried them, because that would lead to extreme category bloat, and there aren't nearly enough such shows to make this television station more special than other television stations that aren't getting eponymous categories.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support deletion - I don't think the number of shows/films produced by the station meets
WP:SMALLCAT and I don't think being produced by the station defines any of the purged articles.
SportingFlyerT·C23:28, 23 May 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:KYW-TV
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: Eponymous category for an individual television station, which other than the eponym itself is populated entirely by past or present staff of that station. This is a
WP:PERFCAT violation, however: because people can move around to different television or radio stations over the course of their careers, this would lead to extreme category bloat if people were categorized for every individual television station they had ever worked for.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:58, 20 May 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:Video game cover athletes
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:Pejorative terms for European people
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:YouTube critics and reviewers
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: Are 'critics' and 'reviewers' the same thing? If not, then two categories are needed. Adding 'content' makes it clear that the criticism is not about the platform.
Fuddle (
talk)
03:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment & Keep, I would not rename this Critics of YouTube content (although that could be a category on its own merit, for sure). Also, I'm not sure about Arin Hanson, but this is absolutely a defining category for Anthony Fantano. Category "is for YouTubers who publish video reviews about films, music, video games, etc." It describes their content. Just as there's a "Gaming YouTubers" category for YouTubers who are defined by publishing gaming content, this is for YouTubers who are defined by publishing review content. Easy Keep for me.
Soulbust (
talk)
08:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment and keep. I am an arts reviewer by profession. I am not an art critic. A reviewer gives details of what an be found and an overall analysis; a critic points out the good and bad features of something. The two designations overlap considerably however, so having one category for both makes sense.
Grutness...wha?03:22, 21 May 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.