The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The scope of this appears to be films/TV series featuring Roger Moore. That isn't a sufficiently cohesive topic for a category and I don't think it should be a sufficiently cohesive topic for a portal. Otherwise we'll have a portal on every actor with a significant filmography. Hut 8.5 12:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In this particular kind of case (an actor), it points out a special problem: we are currently categorizing books by their author, songs by their writer, albums by their singer/band, etc., but we do not do this with films and their stars, nor do we creat "by performance" navboxes for TV/film actors. If we take the same approach with portals, it's going to mean that actor portals get suppressed while others do not even though comparable in every other way (playwrights, musicians/bands, composers, painters, etc., etc.). There are lots of authors with enough books to meet
WP:POG's "20 articles" criterion (if we thinks that's a valid criterion to apply here), but Roger Moore is clearly of more encyclopedic interest to more readers than quite a number of notable authors with 20+ books are (especially academic books, or novels usually perceived as a series, as a single giant work). It's a thorny question. I'm going to lean delete in this case because of lack of categorization of works featuring Roger Moore as being Roger Moore subtopics; there is no
Category:Roger Moore at all. But, we apply different criteria to categories and navboxes (in the case of actors, they coincidentally result in suppression of by-performance links); to what extent if at all should portal linkage mirror category and navbox linkage, in a "special" topic area like this?
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
The result of the discussion was: delete . ♠ PMC♠ (talk) 06:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
The scope of this appears to be films/TV series featuring Roger Moore. That isn't a sufficiently cohesive topic for a category and I don't think it should be a sufficiently cohesive topic for a portal. Otherwise we'll have a portal on every actor with a significant filmography. Hut 8.5 12:26, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
In this particular kind of case (an actor), it points out a special problem: we are currently categorizing books by their author, songs by their writer, albums by their singer/band, etc., but we do not do this with films and their stars, nor do we creat "by performance" navboxes for TV/film actors. If we take the same approach with portals, it's going to mean that actor portals get suppressed while others do not even though comparable in every other way (playwrights, musicians/bands, composers, painters, etc., etc.). There are lots of authors with enough books to meet
WP:POG's "20 articles" criterion (if we thinks that's a valid criterion to apply here), but Roger Moore is clearly of more encyclopedic interest to more readers than quite a number of notable authors with 20+ books are (especially academic books, or novels usually perceived as a series, as a single giant work). It's a thorny question. I'm going to lean delete in this case because of lack of categorization of works featuring Roger Moore as being Roger Moore subtopics; there is no
Category:Roger Moore at all. But, we apply different criteria to categories and navboxes (in the case of actors, they coincidentally result in suppression of by-performance links); to what extent if at all should portal linkage mirror category and navbox linkage, in a "special" topic area like this?
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼 20:29, 23 March 2019 (UTC)