Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11

Category:Television series by New World Television

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:48, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: New World Television was folded into 20th Century Fox Television in 1997, NWT is defunct right now, all NWT shows must be moved to the category of their current distributor. 47.54.189.22 ( talk) 15:08, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose – What you're proposing here and in the nominations below is called an upmerge – merging parent and child categories. In all the cases you've nominated here, an upmerge is not called for, because the current subcategories provide useful distinctions as to the facts of the shows' production histories. Ibadibam ( talk) 20:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: You seem to be determined to upmerge all TV production company categories to their parent companies, and have not given any good reasons to do so, other than that you really really want it like that. Also, the category name is "Television series by...," not "Television series distributed by..." Trivialist ( talk) 20:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: It must be Television series by not Television series distributed by, that what it always was for years, plus no more oppose comments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 ( talk) 21:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
No, you don't get to dictate the opinions other people are or aren't allowed to have in this discussion. Anybody gets to vote any way they want, and you don't get to tell them otherwise. Bearcat ( talk) 23:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. You've been repeatedly told why the cases you're nominating aren't useful — we care about the name that was on the production shingle at the time the show was in production, not about ownership changes that may have taken place five or 10 or 20 or 30 years after the show ceased production. One production company taking over another one does not force the wholesale reshuffling of "television series by production company" categories — if a television series was produced by New World Television at a time when New World Television was a standalone company, then its correct category is "Television series by New World Television" regardless of what happened to New World Television later. Bearcat ( talk) 23:42, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose We should categorize artistic works by the company that created them, not the company that now controls the copyright rights. This is about producer, and that remains the same even if the producer changes ownership, etc. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment If NWT had changed its name to 20th CFT than maybe this change would make sense. However, it was absorbed by the later, so pre-absorption it is a distinct entity, and we should categorize by who actually made the productions. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- While Fox may own them it did not create them. We should categorise by corporate authorship not current ownership. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Im so mad about the comments, no more oppose comments, and close my mergers as merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 ( talk) 13:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Again: you do not get to unilaterally dictate the outcome of a CFD discussion. Each individual contributor gets to hold and express their own opinion one way or the other, and you do not get to control who's allowed to participate. Bearcat ( talk) 15:07, 18 May 2016 (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.

Television series by Warner Bros. Television

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Creativity-II wants the WBTV category back to what it was so we are to have the WHT category merged into the WBTV category, and all Lorimar shows must be moved to the WBTV category.
Warner Bros. owns HBO shows for distribution, so HBO shows like Everybody Loves Raymond, must be seen in the WBTV category.
Warner Bros. owns HBO shows like Politically Incorrect for distribution all HDP shows must be moved to the WBTV category. 47.54.189.22 ( talk) 15:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
What Wikipedia policy or rule supports your interpretation of how these categories "must" work? And what Wikipedia policy or rule allows you to dictate the opinions that contributors are allowed to have or to express in the discussion? Bearcat ( talk) 15:08, 18 May 2016 (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:Telugu 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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Somewhat redundant to Category:Wikipedians in Andhra Pradesh and Category:Wikipedians in Telangana‎. Kailash29792 ( talk) 14:41, 11 May 2016 (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:Lists of governors

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: withdrawn following "merge" outcome below. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Split the lists to two categories matching whatever names may be agreed in the discussion below, about governors of country subdivisions and of non-sovereign entities.
Delete Category:Governors as WP:SHAREDNAME; or perhaps convert it to a category disambiguation page. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:33, 11 May 2016 (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:Provincial and state governors 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: merge and rename to Category:Governors and heads of sub-national entities. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Revised proposal inserted on relisting
Nominator's rationale: User @ Scanlan: recently created a category which largely overlaps existing Governors and heads of state of non-sovereign entities. Also note the existence of Heads of government of non-sovereign entities. I asked the creator what was in their mind the difference in scope of these categories, with no answer so far. I am not sure that the title of governor or the by country mention justifies the creation of a new category, especially since the existing cat is already organised by country and that the new cat also includes leaders with a title different than provincial or state governor ( Presidents of Italian Regions, Spanish Regional Presidents, Heads of government of Australian states and territories, Local executives of places in Taiwan etc.). Also, the category should probably not be restricted to current titles or current countries. Place Clichy ( talk) 10:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC) reply
At this step I would like to invite @ Scanlan: to explain why they created the new Category:Provincial and state governors by country and which scope it has in regard to existing categories. If this is the path of the discussion, where everyone seems to like the "new" name, we could consider a reverse merge. Place Clichy ( talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • It has the opposite problem; we don't want Gideon Gono showing up in Cat:Governors just because he was the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe. Of course, we could always add a text note saying basically "this is only for provincial, state, and comparable-jurisdiction governors, not governors of institutions of other types", and at worst we'd just have to prune the Gono-type contents every so often. As long as we have that text note, I'm fine with those names. Nyttend ( talk) 21:02, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I'm a bit cold about this one. What would you place in Governors that wouldn't be in Governors by country? Also, what would be done with people holding a similar job but with a title different than Governor, such as subcategories Presidents of Italian Regions, Spanish Regional Presidents, Heads of government of Australian states and territories? They would be left out. Provincial and state governors is not that bad after all, we could maybe add or president or or equivalent to cover other types of offices, and leave out unrelated jobs also called governor such as the governor of a fortress, which is I believe not of interest here. Place Clichy ( talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
    Place Clichy, the "Governors" category would be occupied by governors from countries that don't have their own categories. "Governors by country" would be a container category, meant to hold nothing except national subcategories such as "Governors from Egypt", "Governors from the US", etc. Some countries won't have enough governor articles to warrant their own category, so the governors from those countries will get thrown into the general "Governors" category. Nyttend ( talk) 00:44, 5 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have just tagged Category:Governors and heads of state of non-sovereign entities since the discussion now envisages renaming that one. So far only two editors favour merging and two oppose it, so there is no consensus to merge these categories, and all that remains is to agree new names. The first category contains heads of First-level administrative country subdivisions, whereas the second is for heads of colonies, islands and other territories, some of which may be "countries" but not sovereign states. As for "Heads of government", these are distinguished from "Heads of state"/governors, so I suggest leaving them out of this discussion. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic L ondon 14:28, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep current names. While re-reading the old discussion above, I don't think there is any consensus about a rename either. In addition, I would say, there is no need for renaming. So I'm withdrawing my alt rename proposal. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Is Guadeloupe really a non-soverign entity? It is a department of France. It is as much part of France as is Nice or Bordeaux. On the other hand, are people prepared to place Category:Utah Territorial Governors in the non-soverign category? If not, why? Any realistic study of the situation in Territorial Utah will reveal it was under the most oppresive colonialist regime the United States ever created, with huge violations of the civil rights of the residents and denial of residents participation in the political process. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge both to something like Category:Provincial and other governors. These are (and always should be) container categories (except perhaps the odd list-article). The scope is well summarised by Marcocapelle. "Heads of state of non-sovereign entities" is an oxymoron. In some cases, the governor will also be head of government (as in US States). In others, such as internally self-governing colonies, there may also be a head of government. Yes, Guadeloupe should be in. France solved colonial issues by converting its smaller colonies to overseas departments, which are (I think) run by a prefect in much the same way as the departments of metropolitan France. The actual titles will vary, but I think we can live with that. Where there is a separate head of government (e.g. Prime Minister) - as in Gibraltar we can have a separate Heads of government of non-sovereign entities, but that is not what we are discussing here. In each case a detailed headnote will be needed indicating its scope. There is little danger of this picking up inappropriate articles as I suspect that most of the sub-cats are themselves container categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:47, 14 May 2016 (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:Fraternities and sororities based in Bay Village, Ohio

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:55, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Category with just one entry and unlikely to ever have more. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:12, 11 May 2016 (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:Media from The Legend of Zelda series

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.
WP:IAR closing my own discussion, because it's been 10 days (3 over the 7-day discussion time) and there's no opposes. It's an uncontroversial request and probably should not have gone to CfD anyway. Moved. Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 10:36, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only entry at Category:Nintendo media and its parent Category:Video game media to be named under the "Media from [name]" format instead of "[name] media". Satellizer el Bridget  (Talk) 07:31, 11 May 2016 (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:Supposed Christian theologians

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:Authorship debates and Category:Medieval writers, with no opposition to creating a new sub-cat such as Category:Misattributed medieval authorship if additional content can be found (the current member pages are Adalbert of Spalding & Ralph Acton). – Fayenatic L ondon 11:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles without much room for expansion, but don't upmerge to Category:Christian theologians because these two people are only notable for being the subject of a mistake in history writing, not for being a theologian. As a possible merge target I have proposed Category:Historiography of England but I'm open to alternatives. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:20, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. The category name invites a pejorative attack on people who wrote theology but do not meet some arbitrary definition of true theologian. This is not what it is meant to cover, and the head note makes that clear, but people do not have to read head notes to add categories. It is a small category covering a phenomenon that can be better covered in a few articles, and a broader category is needed. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or Rename but not to that target. JPL has not adequately considered what this is about. The subject is two people who were formerly thought to be the authors of works, which are now attributed to others. That is not a perjorative attack (which would certainly be out of order). My suggestion is Category:Misattributed medieval authorship. I do not think we need a category limited to theologians, as I expect there are other misattributions in other fields, which can be included. @ Johnpacklambert:. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:18, 14 May 2016 (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:Processes

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, it's currently a mishmash of unrelated subcategories and articles, and even after cleaning up this category would merely remain a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Not surprisingly, Process is a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:14, 11 May 2016 (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:Good Food Award winners

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
The Good Food Awards is given by a San Francisco group to recognize environmentally conscious food companies. Of the 17 companies in this categories, 6 mention the award in passing and 11 don't mention it at all. I already listified the contents here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Mukilteoedits as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:37, 11 May 2016 (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:Japan Prize laureates

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:05, 21 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
The Japan Prize is an award for scientists who have advanced world peace. In practice, it is usually given to American scientists but it is neither the top award from Japan nor the top award for American scientists. Most of the biography articles here do mention the award, but only within a long list of other awards. The contents of this category are already listified here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified PDH as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Japan. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. RevelationDirect is completely mischaracterizing the award. As it states in the article, it is "awarded to people from all parts of the world whose 'original and outstanding achievements in science and technology are recognized as having advanced the frontiers of knowledge and served the cause of peace and prosperity for mankind.'" It is not "usually given to American scientists". Whether it is the "top award from Japan" is irrelevant. It should be noted that the award ceremony is attended by the Emperor and Empress of Japan, as well as "the Prime Minister, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the President of House of Councilors, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, foreign ambassadors to Japan and about a thousand other distinguished guests, including eminent academics, researchers and representatives of political, business and press circles." That would lead me to believe that it is at least one of the top awards in Japan. Whether it is listified is irrelevant, too, as lists and categories can coexist, and they do not preempt each other. ··· 日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as completely non-defining for people such as Tim Berners-Lee (whose article doesn't even mention this award - going beyond WP:DNWAUC). A list is much better than a category for things like this (e.g. it can include people for whom there is no wp article and cover other complications) and as there's a list there's no need for a category. DexDor (talk) 05:18, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This is the usual outcome for WP:OC#AWARD. In some cases, we need to listify first, but here there is a good list in the main article. If this were a prize awarded for the best scientist working in Japan, I might vote differently, but it is not: it is Japan's award to the world's scientists. The prohibition on awards categories has some exceptions, particularly the Nobel Prizes, but this lacks its prestige. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:57, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The award is non-defining to the people who receive it. No amount of top dignitaries at the ceremony over the fact it does not define the people who recieve it, which is our test of whether an award needs a category. This category just adds to category clutter, which considering we have articles with over 50 awards categories attached to them, is way out of hand. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:09, 14 May 2016 (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:Cal State Los Angeles Diablos football

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The sports teams at California State University, Los Angeles were known as the Diablos prior to 1981. Since the football program was disbanded following the 1977 season, relevant categories and articles should reflect the school's fight name at that time. Jweiss11 ( talk) 01:32, 11 May 2016 (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:Nurse-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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We generally avoid categorizing by a combination of two occupations. Exceptions are made for some combinations of occupation and politician, as with ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Actor-politicians, ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Astronaut-politicians, and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Sportsperson-politicians. The reason those are arguably OK is because it has been identified in reliable sources that these combinations are a "thing"—it is common in various countries for people who gain notability as an actor, or astronaut, or politician to leverage that notability into a political career. This is not the case with nurses—nurses are typically not the type of people who become widely known because of their occupation as a nurse. In other words, persons who have been both nurses and politicians are generally not defined by the combination of "nurse-politician". They may be defined by having been a nurse, and they are defined by being a politician, but not generally by the combination of the two. (The contents could be upmerged to the appropriate parent category for nurses and/or politicians, as needed. I'm happy to do this work if the categories are to be deleted.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete/Merge Doesn't seem to be a meaningful intersection. I'm not so sold on the other categories. RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: see precedent for physician-politicians at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_4#Category:Physician-politicians. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the nominator's rationale, which seems to also fit the physician-politician outcome above. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 00:03, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I still remain unconvinced that this is a useful categorization scheme even in the cases of actors, astronauts or sportspeople, but nominator is correct that it's definitely not useful or defining for nurses. Bearcat ( talk) 23:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- I disagree with the deletion of the physicians category. A politician will come to politics with experience from a previous profession. That experience will feed in to what they achieve in politics. Accordingly Politicians by previous profession seems to me a legitimate category tree. I would not want us to put those who went into nursing after giving up politics into such a tree, but my guess is that it will usually be the other way around. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:47, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I challenge anyone to show that Sue Rocca having been a nurse was controlling to her actions in the state legislature. This is even more questionable with some other people. Being a nurse is not the actual spring-board to notability that gives the people name recognition to get elected. This is not like actor-politicians, and television personality politicians several of them capitalized on their popularity and name recognition for one to move to the other. The same cane be said for sportpeople-politicians in some cases. I do not think it can be said for nurse politicians. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:13, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment some of the people in this article, such as Margaret B. Laird, it is not clear they ever worked as a nurse, just were trained as such. Renee Ellmers had a long career in nursing, and was over multiple nurses, but while this has some relevance to her political career, not enough to create an intersection worth categorizing by. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Categories like this may be ok where the person is notable/famous for their former job, but for most occupations it's overcategorization (e.g. it leads to articles such as Toshiko Abe where the list of categories is almost as long as the article text). DexDor (talk) 18:06, 14 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per PeterKingiron. Doctors are probably the exception, but nurse-politician is a notable intersection.-- TM 18:18, 2 June 2016 (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/2016_May_11&oldid=1091637831"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE