< November 28 November 30 >

November 29

Category:Buddy TV shows

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 10:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Vaguely described (Has no WP article) category. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:02, 29 November 2018 (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:Sexual abuse victims activists

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 10:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per Category:Child crime victim advocates. This was recommended at Category talk:Sexual abuse victims activists ten years ago, so it is probably time to rename. wumbolo ^^^ 18:38, 29 November 2018 (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:Timelines of media

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is either named incorrectly or used incorrectly. it contains multiple sets of categories for entries that are not timelines at all, but that are simply conventional articles on topics that pertain to a specific year. for example, Category:2015_comics_endings contains individual entries for individual comics that ended in 2015, not timelines for 2015, but it is a sub-category of Category:Timelines of media. Sm8900 (talk) 17:42, 29 November 2018 (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:Synod of Bishops (Catholic)

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 10:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Synod of Bishops in the Catholic Church. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The target's capitalisation appears to differ from the intent. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The RM has been closed as no consensus. Let's then rename the category after the article name: Category:Synod of Bishops in the Catholic Church (with capital). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 7 December 2018 (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:Ranji Trophy Cricketers

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) 15:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't add categories to cricketers for each domestic competition they play in, just the teams they represent. As far as I know, this is the same across other sports too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If it's an Important part of their career then mention it in the article text. DexDor (talk) 10:25, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't decide categories because of namesakes importance in a historial event. StickyWicket (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all Ranji teams (including the nine new Ranji sides for 2018/19) are covered by Category:Players in Indian domestic cricket by team - which includes non-Ranji teams dating back to the 1890s. It's totally pointless to categorise players by team, then by competition, surely this goes against WP:OVERCAT? With cricketers it goes: nationality (Category:Fooianstan cricketers) → domestic team played for (Category:Fooian Province cricketers) - then additional categories if they have played one of the three international formats (i.e. Fooianstan Test cricketers). In regards to Indian cricketers, a lot of the articles were created by Bobo192 in the early days and he categorised them all. Any Indian cricketer created since then will have their category assigned when the page is created, which is something Lugnuts is doing a great job on at the moment. StickyWicket (talk) 13:07, 1 December 2018 (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:Locations based on Doctor Who

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 10:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per WP:SMALLCAT, this category only has one member and has no realistic potential for growth beyond a small number. The name is also not very descriptive. Bondegezou (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Just as "descriptive" (actually, the term is "identical") as Category:Works based on Doctor Who and its ten similar-named categories. Can the nominator suggest an alternate category to add the page to, or are they just here to delete? -- AlexTW 14:11, 29 November 2018 (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:Populated coastal places on Martha's Vineyard

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:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:32, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous: Martha's Vineyard is an island; all the towns on it are populated coastal places. Eric talk 13:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Populated coastal places in Chilmark, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Chilmark is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Tisbury is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:35, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Populated coastal places in "Up-Island" Martha's Vineyard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous: Martha's Vineyard is an island, every town on it is coastal. Eric talk 13:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Populated coastal places in "Down-Island" Martha's Vineyard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous: Martha's Vineyard is an island, every town on it is coastal. Eric talk 13:33, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Gosnold is itself a populated coastal town that comprises a chain of small islands. Eric talk 13:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have fixed that just now, for these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean we shouldn't categorize villages as populated coastal places at all (i.e. limit it to towns), or do you mean we shouldn't categorize villages on an island as populated coastal places (i.e. limit it to places ashore)? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle: Hi Marco- I think Category:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts placed on a coastal town's article should suffice. (Who knows what the motivation for populated was, but that's another discussion; it would be difficult to define the unpopulated coastal "places" in Massachusetts). Chilmark, Tisbury, and Gosnold are three of the six towns on Martha's Vineyard, and all are coastal; we don't need to further categorize "places" within each of these small towns as coastal. "Up-Island" and "Down-Island" are local terms for sections of Martha's Vineyard; those cats are utterly unnecessary. Eric talk 23:03, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Populated coastal places in Gosnold, Massachusetts should definitely be deleted though, as it contains articles about islands, rather than articles about populated places. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marco, that cat you added back to the Wellfleet article was my first candidate for deletion. All the towns on the Outer Cape are coastal. There is no Cape Cod town that is not coastal (see this map). Am I missing something here? Eric talk 15:28, 2 December 2018 (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:Coastal towns in Massachusetts

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:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; all towns in this county are coastal. Eric talk 13:17, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category refers to something that does not exist; all towns in this county are coastal, and it has no cities. Eric talk 13:16, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; all towns on Cape Cod are coastal. Eric talk 13:12, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Chatham is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Dennis is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Populated coastal places in Falmouth, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Falmouth is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:24, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Harwich is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:23, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Populated coastal places in Sandwich, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Sandwich is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:21, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Mashpee is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Populated coastal places in Yarmouth, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; Yarmouth is itself a populated coastal town. Eric talk 13:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BrownHairedGirl: Good idea, thanks, I wasn't sure how to present these. I did a bit of re-grouping by geography. Eric talk 13:29, 30 November 2018 (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:Libraries in Copley Square

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 10:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous; there is only one library in Copley Square. Eric talk 13:27, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Good grief! I can't believe that this category exists, and that a discussion to remove it is needed. --A really paranoid android (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2018 (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:Whig (British political party) MPs

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. Timrollpickering 10:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. The British Whigs were the only Whigs to have MPs and Lords. The only other Whig parties with seats in their national legislatures were the Whig Party (United States) and the Liberian True Whig Party, who had Representatives and Senators. Opera hat (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you direct me to the convention? (Really, I seriously want to understand the rationale, and I haven't been able to find any guideline to support it.) Opera hat (talk) 23:52, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCCAT just says that standard article naming conventions apply, and WP:NCGAL says that "care should be taken to avoid convoluted or artificial constructions". I'm struggling to think of anything more convoluted and artificial than these category titles. Opera hat (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What's the difference between these categories and Category:Whig Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom? Opera hat (talk) 16:47, 30 November 2018 (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:Whig (British political party) 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: Keep. Timrollpickering 10:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NCDAB. Natural disambiguation is preferable to parenthetical disambiguation. Opera hat (talk) 12:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is the proposed title ambiguous? Opera hat (talk) 23:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
e.g. Whig politicians who are British? That's the normal interpreation of the adjective 'British'. Sionk (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But "Whig politicians who are British" is exactly what they are. In fact it's probably a more accurate description than the current one, as the Whig/Tory divide predated the modern concept of political parties. Opera hat (talk) 23:04, 3 December 2018 (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:Former populated places in 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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 31#Category:Former populated places in Palestine (region). Steel1943 (talk) 21:02, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is classified within the tree of category:Former populated places by country, which should refer to the modern country State of Palestine (a UN-observer status state since 2013) and not the geographical area Palestine (region). Currently, this is the only category of a region within the by country tree. Most of the articles in this cat are already correctly classified, while the few which are located in modern Israel can be easily recategoried. This proposal will come in line with previous procedures to differentiate Palestine region and the modern State of Palestine, such as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 28#Economy of Palestine.GreyShark (dibra) 07:43, 29 November 2018 (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.

Timeline categories

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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last days User:Sm8900 created a bunch of new categories for timelines:

I propose to delete all remaining categories except the boats as they have very large overlap to established categories like Category:Years in science, Category:2018/Category:2018-related lists, Category:Years, Category:2018 in sports and so on. This parallel structure is a case of mostly overlapping categories. See also the previous discussion on Category talk:2018-related timelines and in the linked deletion pages. --mfb (talk) 06:55, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

in regards to categories above for timelines on specific topical areas, the category Category:Culture-related timelines by year, for example, is for timelines that cover one specific year. the Category:Culture-related timelines includes multiple timelines that span centuries, rather than a single year.
Similarly, Category:Media timelines by year is for timelines that are for one specific year. Category:Timelines_of_media is totally different in scope, purpose, and role. it includes multiple timelines that span centuries, rather than a single year. also, it is a parent category, containing entire categories of entries on media, most of which are not timelines but which are entries that each focus on a single topic that relates to a specific year. I have submitted my own nomination on merging this category, higher up on this page, in regards to this. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 15:35, 29 Novemberu 2018 (UTC)
  • No, I just think the timeline structure as category system parallel to the existing one shouldn't exist. --mfb (talk) 21:05, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • okay, well I do appreciate your courteous reply. I was just joking in my comment immediately above. I am willing to discuss this with you in a forthright manner. I do respect your input.
basically, I do not consider the timelines structure to be superfluous or merely an unnecessary parallel to the list structure. the categories for lists and the categories for timelines are quite distinct, as they are based on specific, clear, straightforward guidelines. that is the main dynamic for categories. lists and timelines are not the same thing, and are quite distinct,regardless of any occasional similarities; that's the point of having a term like "timeline" in the first place. thanks for your comment above. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanks yes, as you note, there is a clear distinction. and also, the category Category:Years in transport is valid as category for these, since it is not confined merely to timelines, or lists. based on your suggestion above, I have added it. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
also the very existence of timelines articles as a structure in the first place creates the si qua non for having these as a general item. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2018 (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 schedules

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:05, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category that was emptied out of process, with all contents evacuated to Category:Television programming, without any locatable evidence that a proper consensus was pursued or established for that. The contents aren't actually television programs, however, but are either schedule grids, or television listings magazines and EPG channels. So I've repopulated it and am listing it for discussion accordingly -- an alternate name and/or a split between the grids and the magazines might very well be appropriate, and I don't have any strong objection if consensus does support upmerging some of the content to "Television programming" (this is easier to defend for the grids than it is for the magazines), but arbitrarily emptying it was not the appropriate process. Just to be clear, this is strictly a procedural listing, as under the circumstances I felt it appropriate to test for consensus over whether it's desired or not — however, other than the need to undo another editor's arbitrary action I don't have a particularly strong opinion of my own one way or another. Bearcat (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2018 (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:Weekly television shows

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 10:33, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Effectively unmaintainable categories, which fortunately haven't seen an actual attempt at population yet beyond one show each. Very nearly every single television program in existence has aired either weekly or daily, or even both in the case of a sitcom that endures in off-network strip syndication or a reality show that runs once a week in the competition phase before running every day in the week of the finals — and only a very small minority of shows run less frequently than once a week. So frequency of scheduling isn't a useful point of categorization for television shows, since the vast majority of all shows that have ever existed at all would have to be filed in one category or the other and a non-trivial number of shows would have to be filed in both. "Weekday events" will also be a completely empty category if "weekday television shows" goes, and a category of unmaintanably large potential if it were repurposed in another way. Bearcat (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2018 (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.
More