< October 15 October 17 >

October 16

Category:The King of Queens episodes

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 argument to delete this category citing WP:SMALLCAT is contradicted by SMALLCAT itself, as it allows exceptions for those "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" such as this. ℯxplicit 05:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT clearly applies here. The King of Queens ended in 2007 and there has been no interest in creating episode articles in the ensuing 11 years. Only 2 articles, one of which is the main episode list, exist and there will almost certainly never be any more. Until 2 days ago, even Category:The King of Queens didn't exist as there are only 6 articles in total for the entire series. However, this category was only just created, along with Category:The King of Queens characters. Moving 3 articles into Category:The King of Queens characters and 2 into this category leaves only 1 article in Category:The King of Queens. To make things more ridiculous, the category creator has not bothered to link what should be two subcats to Category:The King of Queens making it harder to identify related articles and WP:SMALLCAT now applies to all three cats. That said, the existence of Category:The King of Queens may be justifiable if all 6 articles are contained in that category, but there is no reason why this or Category:The King of Queens characters should exist. AussieLegend (✉) 16:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The categories that you refer to are too small as well. At one stage people were creating episode articles for virtually every TV episode that aired. Many of these have been redirected by a lot have been deleted and it's quite possible that the categories once contained more articles. This is not the case with this series.
Since I just created these, linking the subcats was going to be the next step before the nominator started reverting my edits. - I do find this somewhat disingenuous and trying to shift the blame for what happened onto me. The categories were created and populated at least 7 minutes before I started reverting. During that time you made edits to 4 unrelated articles with no attempt to do any linking to Category:The King of Queens, which should have been done when the categories were created. You were somehow able to link to other categories during creation, just not the most important one. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not it is permitted is really irrelevant. You don't need an entire category for a single episode article. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of single article categories all explicitly allowed under WP:SMALLCAT: "... unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Category:American television episodes is a container category: there are no articles at the top level, it is diffused by series. Oculi (talk) 10:09, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, because there are only 6 articles for 3 categories, using the process that Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars advocates, it makes it more difficult to navigate between the 6 articles than it is if they were in a single category. There really is no practical need to have 3 categories when one will do. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's much easier to find similarly related items if they are under a similar category scheme by topic (say characters or episodes) than to guess what may exist under a single top-level eponymous category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:34, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there were a lot of character or episode articles for the series that claim may have some credibility but here we are talking about 3 characters and a single episode article for the entire series. That's barely enough to justify one category. I don't really see the claim as being supportable at all when it comes to searching for episodes. Why would anyone be searching for "related" episodes? The only episodes that are related to the single episode that we have are other King of Queens episodes and there are none. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:21, 18 October 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:The King of Queens characters

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 argument to delete this category citing WP:SMALLCAT is contradicted by SMALLCAT itself, as it allows exceptions for those "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" such as this. ℯxplicit 05:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT clearly applies here. The King of Queens ended in 2007 and there has been no interest in creating character articles in the ensuing 11 years. Only 3 character articles exist and there will almost certainly never be any more. Until 2 days ago, even Category:The King of Queens didn't exist as there are only 6 articles in total for the entire series. However, this category was only just created, along with Category:The King of Queens episodes. Moving 2 articles into Category:The King of Queens episodes and 3 into this category leaves only 1 article in Category:The King of Queens. To make things more ridiculous, the category creator has not bothered to link what should be two subcats to Category:The King of Queens making it harder to identify related articles and WP:SMALLCAT now applies to all three cats. That said, the existence of Category:The King of Queens may be justifiable if all 6 articles are contained in that category, but there is no reason why this or Category:The King of Queens episodes should exist. AussieLegend (✉) 16:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The categories that you refer to are too small as well. At one stage people were creating character articles for most characters in TV series. Many of these have since been deleted and it's quite possible that the categories once contained more articles. This is not the case with this series. As for searching for the characters, most readers first stop would likely be the main series article where they can find links to the character article they're looking for. Going to Category:Sitcom characters by series would be a long way of doing things. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Categorization is a beautiful thing. I can read an article about Cosmo Kramer and from there decide to go to Category:Seinfeld characters and then to its parent Category:Sitcom characters by series. Now, I can find articles on other oddball characters I may be interested in reading about such as Barney Fife or Charlie Kelly (It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:05, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand you could go to Cosmo Kramer and immediately see all of the Seinfeld characters listed in the navbox at the bottom of the page without any need for categorisation. You can also see links to 27 other related articles without the need to go category hopping. The King of Queens navbox serves the same purpose. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox is how I get to other articles related to Seinfeld, not how I get from Kramer to Barney Fife. What's wrong with category hopping? I learn so much by doing that. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you need to go to Barney Fife from Cosmo Kramer? They're not in the same series, they're just two random characters. Your categorisation is really excessive for this series. Any cats that you need to facilitate random searchescan easily be added to Category:The King of Queens. That's one of the reasons we have WP:SMALLCAT. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because I am interested in reading articles about other characters in other sitcoms, which I can easily do from Category:Sitcom characters by series. I might do the same thing with Category:Indie rock musical groups from California: one minute I could be reading about a group I like such as Silversun Pickups then go on to read about a group I never heard of like The Mowgli's, simply by exploring the category. But why would I do that, I guess you would ask, since they're just two random groups. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:30, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't explain why an extra category is needed and we shouldn't be creating content to suit the preferences of a single editor. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:40, 17 October 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:Railway stations served by Heathrow Connect

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 pending centralised discussion. Timrollpickering 19:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category, defunct operator with all services now operated by Crossrail and covered by that operator's equivalent category. Metro140 (talk) 06:06, 16 October 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:Neurological disease deaths in New York (state)

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: Upmerge. Timrollpickering 19:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Neurological disease deaths in the United States is not otherwise broken up by state. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:16, 16 October 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:London protocols

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 13:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of unrelated subjects with a shared name. These are various unrelated treaties that happen to be called the "London Protocol". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 16 October 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:International Society for Krishna Consciousness bands

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 13:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization and inaccurate. E.g. Cro-Mags don't really perform Hindu music. Upmerge as appropriate. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:47, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 16 October 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:Cultural depictions of people

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: containerize, as proposed. I will leave the implementation of this to the participants in the discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category which needs a purge due to extreme misuse. While it's valid in principle as a container for the subcategories that it contains, and the usage note states that "This category is for categories and lists of cultural and other works (including film, TV and literature) that feature depictions of people", the problem here is that it's often directly applied to random individual films and television series and characters — but virtually every single film or television series or play or novel that exists at all, and every single character within any of them, is by definition a "cultural depiction of people", making this an WP:INDISCRIMINATE category. (For example, The Nanny and Everybody Loves Raymond and Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23, which have been filed here, are not somehow more defined by being "cultural depictions of people" than, say, The Big Bang Theory or Kim's Convenience or The West Wing, which have not.) And further to that, I've also already caught at least one example of a real person being filed here, on the trivial basis that somebody once played him in a film — but since a lot of notable people have been portrayed on film, filing real people here on that basis is also a recipe for extreme indiscriminacy. This is not a good basis for a content category, because it doesn't represent a point of distinction between the things that have been filed here and similar things that haven't — it's a valid parent for the subcategories, but it should not contain a random and arbitrary selection of individual works or characters. Bearcat (talk) 16:44, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An awful lot of the problems would be solved by renaming to Category:Cultural depictions of real individual people. I don't see a problem with say Rubens (film) being in a subcat, but clearly dramas about fictional characters don't belong, nor social/anthropological documentaries etc etc. Plus a clearer category note, & repeating for the subcats. Is this old discussion partly to blame? The current category note is certainly part of the problem:
This category is for categories and lists of cultural and other works (including film, TV and literature) that feature depictions of people.
For works which are essentially based on real people, see Category:Works based on real people.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 16 October 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:Satire anime and manga

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 13:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three members (WP:SMALLCAT) and whose inclusion in this category are no supported by reliable sources per WP:CATVER. —Farix (t | c) 22:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 16 October 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:Non-Gregorian observances by Gregorian 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: manually disperse the contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose deleting Category:Non-Gregorian observances by Gregorian month (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose merging into Category:Observances on non-Gregorian calendars:
    • Category:Non-Gregorian January observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian February observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian March observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian March observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian April observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian May observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian June observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian July observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian August observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian September observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian October observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian November observances
    • Category:Non-Gregorian December observances
Nominator's rationale: If the observance isn't on the Gregorian calendar, it doesn't belong to a Gregorian month. 37.26.146.197 (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Some of the categories were not tagged for discussion, but they are now. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sounds like a better compromise. Such parent category is necessary at this stage. Orientls (talk) 07:52, 22 October 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