Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 8 September 10 >

September 9

Category:Made in Chelsea cast members

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) 05:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: following consensus at CFD 2016 July 27 for a larger category that had 18 pages, compared to only 5 here. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:15, 9 September 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.
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 and prune as originally nominated, except prune Category:Regions of the West Coast of the United States as described rather than deleting it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:41, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The consensus to delete Category:Parks of the West Coast of the United States concluded that the phrase "West Coast" should be taken to mean the coastal region itself, and not the entirety of the three states that border the ocean, as has heretofore been used. Based on this consensus, the above categories should also be considered for deletion, or at least purged of their broad, state-level subcategories. Ibadibam ( talk) 22:26, 20 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: relisting to allow discussion of the proposed refinement of the nomination
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix ( talk) 18:17, 9 September 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:British television series based on non-British television 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.
The result of the discussion was: procedural keep. Marcocapelle's argument is compelling. This nomination fails to include any of the highly-similar sibling categories or even Category:British television series based on American television series, which is a sub-category of the one nominated here. As I see it, my only options are to relist and at least consider the sub-category in conjunction with this one or to procedurally keep the category and allow another editor to open the comprehensive discussion I think everyone would like to be having. The latter seems substantially more attractive given the positions expressed in this discussion. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF, overly specific categorization. nyuszika7h ( talk) 12:30, 9 September 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:2017 television series debuts

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) 06:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:CRYSTAL. Plans may change, generally these categories are only added to shows once they have already premiered, otherwise Category:Upcoming television series should be used. nyuszika7h ( talk) 12:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • No, they're not. They're added as soon as we can reliably source that they've been announced as premiering in that year — if they're pushed back or cancelled before airing later on, then we certainly recategorize them as necessary once that happens, but there's no rule that the show has to have already premiered before we can add it to a debuts category. As long as its year of debut, actual or projected, is properly sourced, that's all we require. Bearcat ( talk) 04:12, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
No, you have to do that as the nominator, otherwise they won't be included. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:14, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
 Done nyuszika7h ( talk) 13:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. While it's true that in some cases the actual premiere date of an already-announced television series is still up in the air, there are also many cases where the date has already been announced. WP:CRYSTAL does not prohibit sourced content about things that haven't happened yet; it merely prohibits us from engaging in our own original research speculation about details that aren't definitively sourceable yet. If something changes in the future and a series that has been announced as premiering in February 2017 gets pushed back to 2018 instead, then we can recategorize it accordingly once the pushback is announced — but if reliable sources are currently saying that a show will premiere in 2017, then it's not a WP:CRYSTAL violation for us to say and categorize the same thing that the sources are already saying. Bearcat ( talk) 00:14, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I understand that, but I'm pretty sure WP:TV guidelines say we should only add those once they have already aired, similarly to the |first_aired= / |released= parameter in {{ Infobox television}}. I can't find the exact guideline regarding categories (if there is one), but other project editors may be able to help. nyuszika7h ( talk) 19:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
      • They don't say that. WP:TV only precludes making our own predictions about the premiere date of a forthcoming series that hasn't been officially upfronted yet, in the sense that we can't assume that a show will premiere in 2017 just because we know it's in production but hasn't premiered yet. But once reliable sources say it's premiering in 2017, WP:TV has no rule against categorizing it as such. Bearcat ( talk) 01:17, 12 September 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.

Deaths in 1927 by month

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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 10:08, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No other deaths by month structure exists and I think this would need a project-wide consensus to do this. I'm pretty sure similar categories have been deleted like this in the past. I've checked the articles and they're already in the Category:1927 deaths, so there's no need to upmerge. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:35, 9 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If diffusion is needed it shouldn't be done the easiest way, but rather by something that is relevant to the topic. Diffusion by cause of death may be useful indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:46, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Any "year deaths" category could always have the same claim made about it. 1927 isn't uniquely overstuffed — in point of fact, it's actually on the small end compared to many of the others, since more recent categories are quite often two or three times larger than 1927 is. Bearcat ( talk) 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:38, 10 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Subcategorizing years of death by individual month isn't particularly helpful or WP:DEFINING. It's a valid way to break up the "list of deaths" article into readable sublists, but it's not a useful aid to navigation at the category level. Bearcat ( talk) 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is not defining to the Individual. Let us look at why year of death is. The most basic obituary for Boyd K. Packer would read "Boyd K. Packer (1924-2015) was the President of the Quorum of the 12 Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 2008 until his death. He had previously served as acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve from 1995 until 2008." Year of birth and death will always be listed if known, they are basic defining facts. Month of death is not. By breaking down to month of death we would miss a lot whose exact month is unknown, and thus not neccesarily group together. The highest number of articles in any given year for death is 7,557 in 2014 (the highest number of births is 15,124 in 1988, which shows how presentist Wikipedia is). That would give us if fully dispersed 630 articles per month on average. Size is not the only issue. I think we are willing to have birth year, death year, and the general living people categories that are truly large (the last has over 788,000 entries). I don't think there is any good reason to divide these particular categories in a more precise way. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 04:49, 14 September 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:Judicial system of Bhutan

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:
Nominator's rationale: The main article for this category is Judiciary of Bhutan and the parent category is Category:Judiciaries by country. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:19, 9 September 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_September_9&oldid=1075704862"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE