Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 13 February 15 >

February 14

Category:Catholic cathedrals by autonomous particular church

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_6#Category:Catholic_churches_by_autonomous_particular_church. The first one now nominated here duplicates Category:Eastern Catholic cathedrals, except for the Roman Catholic sub-cat which is in the parent Category:Catholic cathedrals. The others are not needed as well as Category:Catholic cathedrals in Canada, Category:Catholic cathedrals in Ukraine & Category:Catholic cathedrals in the United States. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television programs by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering 11:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In this December CfD, it was suggested that shows would be a better term than programs/programmes, as it avoids the WP:ENGVAR issue. That discussion wasn't directly about this category tree, so here's a new one.
Subcategories
* Category:LGBT-related television programs by country
-- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support It seems adequate to me to change the name from "programming" to "shows". The change seems useful and uncontroversial.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 15:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support. User:Dwarf Kirlston mentions the alternative "TV programming"; that name is currently widely-used in the hierarchy, but is not involved in this nomination, which is about "program(me)s" to "shows". The meaning of "TV shows" is clearer and more specific than "programming". If we did use "programming", we could incorporate content from Category:Television programming blocks, but IMHO it will be sufficient for articles about blocks to sit in the national sub-cats of Category:Television by country, rather than mixing them in with TV shows. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television programming by language

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/rename to Category:Television programs by language (and Foo-language television programs for the subcats). There is a consensus to move away from programming and shows, but no consensus on program versus programme. I am selecting program by default, to align with that category's parent, Category:Television programs. There was some discussion of applying WP:ENGVAR to the by-country television shows categories, but those were not tagged and will have to be nominated separately. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: (Also open to the alternative Category:Television programs by language.)
The term programming was chosen for this category tree back in this 2009 CfD, in order to solve the ENGVAR discrepancies between program and programmes. However, "programming" is actually confusing, because it incorrectly suggests that these are supposed to be concept categories about the activity/process of television programming, while their actual intended scope is for individual programs/programmes/shows. This category tree should be a child of Category:Television programs, not Category:Television programming (which has since become a concept cat about the process).
I've suggested renaming to shows instead of programs because it was suggested in this recent CfD that shows would be a better term due to ENGVAR. I'll list a separate CfD for the rest of the programs tree. If that discussion results in keeping programs/programmes, this tree should also use programs/programmes instead.
Note that this proposal will overturn previous CfDs from here, here, here and here.
Also nominated
* Category:Television programs by language (Should be merged.)
-- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Pinging Oculi, BrownHairedGirl and Bearcat, who contributed to the original discussion leading to the current programming scheme, and Fayenatic london and Jc37, who supported shows in the December discussion. (Please see also the section above this one.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'm inclined to support this. One weakness that I can see is that Category:Television programming blocks, and its member pages, belong within "programming" but don't belong within "shows". If there were plenty of articles on programming blocks by language, then we could maintain the existing categories as well as the proposed ones, but I suspect that there are not sufficient to make this useful for navigation. Perhaps this could best be solved by making the move as proposed, then reviewing each of the contents of Category:Television programming blocks and its sub-cats, and moving them up from the new "Foo-language television shows" category to "Foo-language television" (see Category:Television by language). – Fayenatic L ondon 14:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Was the TV project ever notified of this discussion? It has long been held by the project that "show" is not the correct word to use and "series", "program" or "programme" is more appropriate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, it was. I'd be happy to have more input from the project. Perhaps these two discussions could be relisted also? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC) (Oops. Just saw that the above discussion had been closed.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for that link. Clearly it's been missed by the project. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 02:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As I've stated above, the TV project has long held that "show" is not the correct word to use and "series", "program" or "programme" is more appropriate. It's common in TV articles for the first sentence in a series article to start with "<Foo> is a television <series/program/programme>". If "show" is used it's always changed as that word is more suited to something you'd see on broadway (a musical etc). When applied to television, it's informal and not encyclopaedic in tone. For the purposes of this discussion "programming" is the more appropriate word; it covers both US and interational English. We could use "programs" or "programmes" when referring to TV for different markets. It's unfortunate that we have to use two similar but different words, but that's going to be an issue until the US changes to use international English. Changing the category to "shows" is not going to change the wording in TV articles, and that means the category structure is going to be inconsistent with all of the articles that it categorises. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 02:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    • AussieLegend, what about my suggested rationale that "programming" is problematic as a category name because it suggests a concept category rather than a content category (which all of these are)? As noted, I'm fine with program/programmes, but not programming. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I'd have to agree that "programming" is as problematic as "show". -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Rename If not "show", "programme/program" is better than "programming" as far as the definition is concerned. In order to solve WP:ENGVAR discrepancies, perhaps countries that follow British English can be named 'programme' while the rest can be named 'program'. Mar4d ( talk) 05:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Television programs by language (as nominator suggested as a second option). The word "programming" is not capturing the content correctly, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. With respect to the US exception, the simple solution is to have a top category with "programs" in the name, while US subcategories can keep "shows" in the names. There is really no benefit in naming the top category different than any of its subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Television programs by language per Marcocapelle. Agree with above that both the status quo and first offered solution are problematic. The split of
doesn't feel useful. Similarly between
Category:Television programming doesn't match a parent article, the apparent parent article is a redirect to Broadcast programming. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose: I disagree with Marcocapelle's point that programming fails to capture the intended meaning. The industry sense of programming is a relatively technical one. The word scheduling covers very similar ground (and is used in that way, as well in a more restricted sense, in the article) and I think it would be the more popular name for the activity. Programming to mean "television content" is clear enough. Show is too restrictive. I would also revert the other category changes that have followed the same misplaced logic. Matt's talk 10:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that this wasn't really my point but rather a summary of the discussion so far. It is basically the distinction between a set category (containing items, in this case programs or shows) versus a topic category (in this case about the process of programming). Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Changing my !vote to merge/rename to Category:Television programs by language etc. The content for programming blocks can be moved up to "television by language". As for whether to use "programs" or "programmes" for the subcats, follow the strongest link to a country in each case, see this diff. @ Paul 012, Dwarf Kirlston, and Timrollpickering: would you agree to reopen and reverse the nomination above (by country)? – Fayenatic London 06:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Oh dear; I'd already forgotten about this CfD. No opposition from me regarding re-opening the by-country tree. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 01:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Rename in Some Fashion "Programming" is not clear. No preference between "Shows" and "Programs/Programmes". RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kazakh ambassador

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Lists of ambassadors of Kazakhstan ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Pointless sub-category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politically leftist Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep the user boxes but delete the categories. – Fayenatic London 08:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCAT#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories: "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete irrelevant when writing from a neutral point of view is paramount. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Shouldn't Category:Politically right-wing Wikipedians have been nominated at the same time? Is there any difference? This nominated category is in use by 614 Wikipedians and contains two subcats as well. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this and all cats that directly identify Wikipedians as supporting specific political movements It's better to not know other's political opinions. I have seen at least one user directly support a politician on their user page, and it affected my opinion of them and made it harder to interact civilaly with then. These cats just make more issues. JDDJS ( talk) 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
But you have similar user-boxes on your own page - e.g. User:FingersOnRoids/ProGayMarriage. St Anselm ( talk) 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: It certainly affects editors' writing and is helpful for other editors to know. It would be biased in the extreme to delete this category and keep the other. St Anselm ( talk) 20:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ StAnselm: those who choose to identify their political allegiance or stance can use a userbox. The problem with the category is that it facilitates collaboration on the basis of a shared political belief system, which is very bad news for an NPOV encyclopedia. That sort of thing does happen in other way, but we should not allow the creation of a tool whose prime purpose is to facilitate it.
      It quite agree that the right-wing category should go too, and am glad that AusLondonder has kindly added it to he nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious delete per nom along with similar categories (which I would suggest are tagged and added to this nom) VegaDark ( talk) 03:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I've added the right-wing category to the nomination, though I'm voting keep as it may be helpful to know each other's biases. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks for adding that. I'm not sure why BrownHairedGirl didn't add it or respond to my question. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ AusLondonder: The reason that I didn't respond to your question was that I was unaware of it, because I hadn't revisited the discussion and you had chosen not to ping me.
Anyway, now that you did ping me, I am here, so I'll happily answer: I hadn't seen the other category at the time. I just saw Category:Politically leftist Wikipedians, and knew it was a blatant USERVAT violation, so I quickly CFDed it and moved on.
Well done spotting Category:Politically right-wing Wikipedians. Yes, of course it should go too, and thanks for adding it to the nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ BrownHairedGirl: Ok, no worries. I had assumed you would revisit the discussion but I should have pinged you. If we do decide to delete these two categories then there are perhaps others within Category:Wikipedians by philosophy which would be of concern such as Category:Trotskyist Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians who adhere to progressivism. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ AusLondonder: glad we cleared that up. As to other categories, I think there is an equally strong case for getting rid of them: Wikipedia's NPOV core policy is not be facilitating networking between any group of people with a shared political agenda. I'd happy for someone to add them to this nom, or alternatively to start a new nomination of them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't think this comes under "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position" - that would be for more specific issues like Category:Wikipedians in favor of same-sex marriage - the guideline says "a person, object, issue, or idea". This broad category is more akin to the philosophical or religious category (of which we have plenty). St Anselm ( talk) 20:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In an WP:NPOV encyclopedia, we're supposed to be checking our ideological biases at the door and editing neutrally — so there's not much collaborative value in grouping users ideologically. I'll grant that not everybody does edit as neutrally as we should, but that has to be evaluated by looking at the content of someone's actual edits rather than by scanning their userpages, because neither lefties nor righties are inherently incapable of being neutral and balanced per se. And besides, ideology isn't necessarily a fixed or objective scale in the first place — it has as much to do with the perception of the person who's evaluating the ideology as it does with any objective fact, as witness the fact that a mushy-middle triangulator like Hillary Clinton gets labelled as "radical left" by some people and as "neoconservative" by others.
    User categories should exist to flag specific topics of interest for collaboration purposes, not just to advertise one's basic ideological affiliations — but flagging oneself as "leftist" or "right-wing" doesn't necessarily do that. For instance, while I certainly have ideological beliefs and would certainly belong in one of these categories, when it comes to political content on Wikipedia I generally confine myself to the data of politics (the initial creation of base articles about WP:NPOL passers, the raw election numbers, etc.) and largely stay out of the ideological matters except occasionally stepping in to review policy compliance when there's a content dispute — the primary topics that I devote most of my content-creating time to are film, music, television and literature, where my political ideology is largely irrelevant. And even when I do make politics-related edits, I don't pick and choose based on ideology — for instance, when there are new politician BLPs to create after a Canadian election, I'll assist regardless of whether the politicians in question are affiliated with the party I personally support or another party I don't. All of which means that flagging my ideology on my user page would not be a useful gauge of where my collaborative interests lie. Bearcat ( talk) 15:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ideology has nothing to do with how someone edits as long as their biases and beliefs don't translate into their edits. I'm a Republican who is fiscally conservative and socially moderate to liberal (depending on the issue) but I don't let my political leanings affect the edits I make on wikipedia. The category is merely a user box and has no more bearing on neutrality on wikipedia than does the category "vegetarian wikipedians". It may fall under the definition of an inappropriate category as deemed by that policy but then perhaps that an indication that said policy should be up for redrafting -- Have a great day , Sanjev Rajaram ( talk) 04:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - get over yourselves. ComicsAreJustAllRight ( talk) 08:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Stop being a buzzkill, these are just userboxes. People get offended over the smallest things these days, yeesh. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 05:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Geography of Palestine (region)

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: not done. Deryck C. 13:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Obviously "geography of <foo> region" is the same as "<foo> region". Typically we have a "geography of <foo>", where foo is a state, but we already have Palestinian geography categories at Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories. GreyShark ( dibra) 06:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose In the case of this region, we have several articles and categories on its history and various political subdivisions. Geography is not the primary topic. The geography of the Palestinian territories is irrelevant, because these territories do not cover the entire region. According to Palestine (region), the region is defined in the geographic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Dimadick ( talk) 08:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
But you do realize that Palestine (region) is a geographic article and thus Geography of Palestine (region) is the same topic (there is no such an article). GreyShark ( dibra) 09:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support I'm inclined to agree with the nom. Once you put "region" into the title, it's virtually synonymous with "geography". Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for now Changing my vote per Marco's rationale. It's a two-step process. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, this performs a useful navigational function in sub-dividing topics; the target category is already well-populated. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for now, the discussion isn't really about merging the child category but about purging the parent category. The question is: should non-geographic content be removed from that category? Merging is only useful after the latter question has been answered by a yes. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grand Princes of Tver

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. ℯ xplicit 00:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, contains only one article and according to Prince of Tver there has been only one Grand Prince of Tver. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Fayenatic london: The English article Aleksandr Mikhailovich says in the main text, Prince of Tver and Grand Prince of Vladimir-Suzdal. Unfortunately my knowledge of Russian is 0. Regardless, neither of the other Russian category members than Alexander and Mikhail II have actually ruled Tver, so it seems to me it remains a case of SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Titles in Kievan Rus

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 15:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, only contains a single child category. While it's part of an established tree by country, I suppose we don't have to have every former country in the tree as well. Many current countries aren't even in the tree yet, for example the Belorussian titles category doesn't exist, so that we can't merge the nominated category to its Belorussian counterpart. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Individual bikinis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Categorycruft. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 03:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
"Well populated"? There are only 4 articles. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 16:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Pechenga

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:People from Murmansk Oblast ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Propose deleting category
Nominator's rationale: Propose deleting as unpopulated (1 entry since created in 2016) and of no discernible notability. Quis separabit? 03:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Pechengsky 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Propose deleting category
Nominator's rationale: Propose deleting as unpopulated (1 entry since created in 2016) and of no discernible notability. Quis separabit? 03:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_14&oldid=1138410719"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 13 February 15 >

February 14

Category:Catholic cathedrals by autonomous particular church

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:22, 11 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_January_6#Category:Catholic_churches_by_autonomous_particular_church. The first one now nominated here duplicates Category:Eastern Catholic cathedrals, except for the Roman Catholic sub-cat which is in the parent Category:Catholic cathedrals. The others are not needed as well as Category:Catholic cathedrals in Canada, Category:Catholic cathedrals in Ukraine & Category:Catholic cathedrals in the United States. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television programs by country

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering 11:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In this December CfD, it was suggested that shows would be a better term than programs/programmes, as it avoids the WP:ENGVAR issue. That discussion wasn't directly about this category tree, so here's a new one.
Subcategories
* Category:LGBT-related television programs by country
-- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:45, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support It seems adequate to me to change the name from "programming" to "shows". The change seems useful and uncontroversial.-- User:Dwarf Kirlston - talk 15:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support. User:Dwarf Kirlston mentions the alternative "TV programming"; that name is currently widely-used in the hierarchy, but is not involved in this nomination, which is about "program(me)s" to "shows". The meaning of "TV shows" is clearer and more specific than "programming". If we did use "programming", we could incorporate content from Category:Television programming blocks, but IMHO it will be sufficient for articles about blocks to sit in the national sub-cats of Category:Television by country, rather than mixing them in with TV shows. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:42, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Television programming by language

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/rename to Category:Television programs by language (and Foo-language television programs for the subcats). There is a consensus to move away from programming and shows, but no consensus on program versus programme. I am selecting program by default, to align with that category's parent, Category:Television programs. There was some discussion of applying WP:ENGVAR to the by-country television shows categories, but those were not tagged and will have to be nominated separately. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 04:33, 11 September 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: (Also open to the alternative Category:Television programs by language.)
The term programming was chosen for this category tree back in this 2009 CfD, in order to solve the ENGVAR discrepancies between program and programmes. However, "programming" is actually confusing, because it incorrectly suggests that these are supposed to be concept categories about the activity/process of television programming, while their actual intended scope is for individual programs/programmes/shows. This category tree should be a child of Category:Television programs, not Category:Television programming (which has since become a concept cat about the process).
I've suggested renaming to shows instead of programs because it was suggested in this recent CfD that shows would be a better term due to ENGVAR. I'll list a separate CfD for the rest of the programs tree. If that discussion results in keeping programs/programmes, this tree should also use programs/programmes instead.
Note that this proposal will overturn previous CfDs from here, here, here and here.
Also nominated
* Category:Television programs by language (Should be merged.)
-- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:28, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Pinging Oculi, BrownHairedGirl and Bearcat, who contributed to the original discussion leading to the current programming scheme, and Fayenatic london and Jc37, who supported shows in the December discussion. (Please see also the section above this one.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'm inclined to support this. One weakness that I can see is that Category:Television programming blocks, and its member pages, belong within "programming" but don't belong within "shows". If there were plenty of articles on programming blocks by language, then we could maintain the existing categories as well as the proposed ones, but I suspect that there are not sufficient to make this useful for navigation. Perhaps this could best be solved by making the move as proposed, then reviewing each of the contents of Category:Television programming blocks and its sub-cats, and moving them up from the new "Foo-language television shows" category to "Foo-language television" (see Category:Television by language). – Fayenatic L ondon 14:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Was the TV project ever notified of this discussion? It has long been held by the project that "show" is not the correct word to use and "series", "program" or "programme" is more appropriate. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 13:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, it was. I'd be happy to have more input from the project. Perhaps these two discussions could be relisted also? -- Paul_012 ( talk) 14:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC) (Oops. Just saw that the above discussion had been closed.) -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for that link. Clearly it's been missed by the project. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 02:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • As I've stated above, the TV project has long held that "show" is not the correct word to use and "series", "program" or "programme" is more appropriate. It's common in TV articles for the first sentence in a series article to start with "<Foo> is a television <series/program/programme>". If "show" is used it's always changed as that word is more suited to something you'd see on broadway (a musical etc). When applied to television, it's informal and not encyclopaedic in tone. For the purposes of this discussion "programming" is the more appropriate word; it covers both US and interational English. We could use "programs" or "programmes" when referring to TV for different markets. It's unfortunate that we have to use two similar but different words, but that's going to be an issue until the US changes to use international English. Changing the category to "shows" is not going to change the wording in TV articles, and that means the category structure is going to be inconsistent with all of the articles that it categorises. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 02:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
    • AussieLegend, what about my suggested rationale that "programming" is problematic as a category name because it suggests a concept category rather than a content category (which all of these are)? As noted, I'm fine with program/programmes, but not programming. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 03:12, 4 April 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I'd have to agree that "programming" is as problematic as "show". -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 06:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Rename If not "show", "programme/program" is better than "programming" as far as the definition is concerned. In order to solve WP:ENGVAR discrepancies, perhaps countries that follow British English can be named 'programme' while the rest can be named 'program'. Mar4d ( talk) 05:40, 5 April 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Television programs by language (as nominator suggested as a second option). The word "programming" is not capturing the content correctly, I don't think anyone disagrees with that. With respect to the US exception, the simple solution is to have a top category with "programs" in the name, while US subcategories can keep "shows" in the names. There is really no benefit in naming the top category different than any of its subcategories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:38, 28 May 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Television programs by language per Marcocapelle. Agree with above that both the status quo and first offered solution are problematic. The split of
doesn't feel useful. Similarly between
Category:Television programming doesn't match a parent article, the apparent parent article is a redirect to Broadcast programming. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC) reply
Oppose: I disagree with Marcocapelle's point that programming fails to capture the intended meaning. The industry sense of programming is a relatively technical one. The word scheduling covers very similar ground (and is used in that way, as well in a more restricted sense, in the article) and I think it would be the more popular name for the activity. Programming to mean "television content" is clear enough. Show is too restrictive. I would also revert the other category changes that have followed the same misplaced logic. Matt's talk 10:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note that this wasn't really my point but rather a summary of the discussion so far. It is basically the distinction between a set category (containing items, in this case programs or shows) versus a topic category (in this case about the process of programming). Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Changing my !vote to merge/rename to Category:Television programs by language etc. The content for programming blocks can be moved up to "television by language". As for whether to use "programs" or "programmes" for the subcats, follow the strongest link to a country in each case, see this diff. @ Paul 012, Dwarf Kirlston, and Timrollpickering: would you agree to reopen and reverse the nomination above (by country)? – Fayenatic London 06:37, 11 August 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Oh dear; I'd already forgotten about this CfD. No opposition from me regarding re-opening the by-country tree. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 01:19, 15 August 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Rename in Some Fashion "Programming" is not clear. No preference between "Shows" and "Programs/Programmes". RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:54, 26 August 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kazakh ambassador

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Lists of ambassadors of Kazakhstan ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:38, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Pointless sub-category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Politically leftist Wikipedians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep the user boxes but delete the categories. – Fayenatic London 08:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCAT#Inappropriate_types_of_user_categories: "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete irrelevant when writing from a neutral point of view is paramount. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Shouldn't Category:Politically right-wing Wikipedians have been nominated at the same time? Is there any difference? This nominated category is in use by 614 Wikipedians and contains two subcats as well. AusLondonder ( talk) 08:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this and all cats that directly identify Wikipedians as supporting specific political movements It's better to not know other's political opinions. I have seen at least one user directly support a politician on their user page, and it affected my opinion of them and made it harder to interact civilaly with then. These cats just make more issues. JDDJS ( talk) 19:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
But you have similar user-boxes on your own page - e.g. User:FingersOnRoids/ProGayMarriage. St Anselm ( talk) 20:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: It certainly affects editors' writing and is helpful for other editors to know. It would be biased in the extreme to delete this category and keep the other. St Anselm ( talk) 20:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ StAnselm: those who choose to identify their political allegiance or stance can use a userbox. The problem with the category is that it facilitates collaboration on the basis of a shared political belief system, which is very bad news for an NPOV encyclopedia. That sort of thing does happen in other way, but we should not allow the creation of a tool whose prime purpose is to facilitate it.
      It quite agree that the right-wing category should go too, and am glad that AusLondonder has kindly added it to he nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:11, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Obvious delete per nom along with similar categories (which I would suggest are tagged and added to this nom) VegaDark ( talk) 03:02, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I've added the right-wing category to the nomination, though I'm voting keep as it may be helpful to know each other's biases. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Thanks for adding that. I'm not sure why BrownHairedGirl didn't add it or respond to my question. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:03, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ AusLondonder: The reason that I didn't respond to your question was that I was unaware of it, because I hadn't revisited the discussion and you had chosen not to ping me.
Anyway, now that you did ping me, I am here, so I'll happily answer: I hadn't seen the other category at the time. I just saw Category:Politically leftist Wikipedians, and knew it was a blatant USERVAT violation, so I quickly CFDed it and moved on.
Well done spotting Category:Politically right-wing Wikipedians. Yes, of course it should go too, and thanks for adding it to the nomination. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:34, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ BrownHairedGirl: Ok, no worries. I had assumed you would revisit the discussion but I should have pinged you. If we do decide to delete these two categories then there are perhaps others within Category:Wikipedians by philosophy which would be of concern such as Category:Trotskyist Wikipedians and Category:Wikipedians who adhere to progressivism. AusLondonder ( talk) 23:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC) reply
@ AusLondonder: glad we cleared that up. As to other categories, I think there is an equally strong case for getting rid of them: Wikipedia's NPOV core policy is not be facilitating networking between any group of people with a shared political agenda. I'd happy for someone to add them to this nom, or alternatively to start a new nomination of them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:06, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I don't think this comes under "Categories which group users by advocacy of a position" - that would be for more specific issues like Category:Wikipedians in favor of same-sex marriage - the guideline says "a person, object, issue, or idea". This broad category is more akin to the philosophical or religious category (of which we have plenty). St Anselm ( talk) 20:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. In an WP:NPOV encyclopedia, we're supposed to be checking our ideological biases at the door and editing neutrally — so there's not much collaborative value in grouping users ideologically. I'll grant that not everybody does edit as neutrally as we should, but that has to be evaluated by looking at the content of someone's actual edits rather than by scanning their userpages, because neither lefties nor righties are inherently incapable of being neutral and balanced per se. And besides, ideology isn't necessarily a fixed or objective scale in the first place — it has as much to do with the perception of the person who's evaluating the ideology as it does with any objective fact, as witness the fact that a mushy-middle triangulator like Hillary Clinton gets labelled as "radical left" by some people and as "neoconservative" by others.
    User categories should exist to flag specific topics of interest for collaboration purposes, not just to advertise one's basic ideological affiliations — but flagging oneself as "leftist" or "right-wing" doesn't necessarily do that. For instance, while I certainly have ideological beliefs and would certainly belong in one of these categories, when it comes to political content on Wikipedia I generally confine myself to the data of politics (the initial creation of base articles about WP:NPOL passers, the raw election numbers, etc.) and largely stay out of the ideological matters except occasionally stepping in to review policy compliance when there's a content dispute — the primary topics that I devote most of my content-creating time to are film, music, television and literature, where my political ideology is largely irrelevant. And even when I do make politics-related edits, I don't pick and choose based on ideology — for instance, when there are new politician BLPs to create after a Canadian election, I'll assist regardless of whether the politicians in question are affiliated with the party I personally support or another party I don't. All of which means that flagging my ideology on my user page would not be a useful gauge of where my collaborative interests lie. Bearcat ( talk) 15:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Ideology has nothing to do with how someone edits as long as their biases and beliefs don't translate into their edits. I'm a Republican who is fiscally conservative and socially moderate to liberal (depending on the issue) but I don't let my political leanings affect the edits I make on wikipedia. The category is merely a user box and has no more bearing on neutrality on wikipedia than does the category "vegetarian wikipedians". It may fall under the definition of an inappropriate category as deemed by that policy but then perhaps that an indication that said policy should be up for redrafting -- Have a great day , Sanjev Rajaram ( talk) 04:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - get over yourselves. ComicsAreJustAllRight ( talk) 08:46, 30 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Stop being a buzzkill, these are just userboxes. People get offended over the smallest things these days, yeesh. ThatGirlTayler ( talk) 05:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Geography of Palestine (region)

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: not done. Deryck C. 13:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Obviously "geography of <foo> region" is the same as "<foo> region". Typically we have a "geography of <foo>", where foo is a state, but we already have Palestinian geography categories at Category:Geography of the Palestinian territories. GreyShark ( dibra) 06:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose In the case of this region, we have several articles and categories on its history and various political subdivisions. Geography is not the primary topic. The geography of the Palestinian territories is irrelevant, because these territories do not cover the entire region. According to Palestine (region), the region is defined in the geographic area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Dimadick ( talk) 08:24, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
But you do realize that Palestine (region) is a geographic article and thus Geography of Palestine (region) is the same topic (there is no such an article). GreyShark ( dibra) 09:54, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support I'm inclined to agree with the nom. Once you put "region" into the title, it's virtually synonymous with "geography". Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for now Changing my vote per Marco's rationale. It's a two-step process. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, this performs a useful navigational function in sub-dividing topics; the target category is already well-populated. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose for now, the discussion isn't really about merging the child category but about purging the parent category. The question is: should non-geographic content be removed from that category? Merging is only useful after the latter question has been answered by a yes. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:58, 18 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grand Princes of Tver

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. ℯ xplicit 00:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, contains only one article and according to Prince of Tver there has been only one Grand Prince of Tver. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • @ Fayenatic london: The English article Aleksandr Mikhailovich says in the main text, Prince of Tver and Grand Prince of Vladimir-Suzdal. Unfortunately my knowledge of Russian is 0. Regardless, neither of the other Russian category members than Alexander and Mikhail II have actually ruled Tver, so it seems to me it remains a case of SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Titles in Kievan Rus

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 15:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, only contains a single child category. While it's part of an established tree by country, I suppose we don't have to have every former country in the tree as well. Many current countries aren't even in the tree yet, for example the Belorussian titles category doesn't exist, so that we can't merge the nominated category to its Belorussian counterpart. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Individual bikinis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Categorycruft. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 03:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
"Well populated"? There are only 4 articles. KATMAKROFAN ( talk) 16:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Pechenga

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:People from Murmansk Oblast ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Propose deleting category
Nominator's rationale: Propose deleting as unpopulated (1 entry since created in 2016) and of no discernible notability. Quis separabit? 03:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Pechengsky 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Propose deleting category
Nominator's rationale: Propose deleting as unpopulated (1 entry since created in 2016) and of no discernible notability. Quis separabit? 03:08, 14 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_14&oldid=1138410719"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE