< February 7 February 9 >

February 8

Category:Fictional future 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: merge to Category:Time travelers. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Future people is not a descriptive statement. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Does this mean "characters in works of fiction based in the future" or "fictional time travelers"? If it's the second, I support renaming but suggest it should be called Category:Fictional time travelers or similar. If it's the first, I'd lean towards deletion. That category would be enormous and ill-defined. Kevinsam2 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Category:Time travelers already exists, suggest merging there. Kevinsam2 (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2019 (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:Paranormal genres

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:Fiction about the paranormal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically an empty category with just a subcat in it. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (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:Inuit from the Northwest Territories

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. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two categories that aren't really distinguishing their entries into distinct groups, but instead are mostly overlapping with each other. The problem is that Nunavut has only existed as a geopolitical entity since 1999, and was part of the Northwest Territories prior to that -- which means that any Inuit person from Nunavut who is older than 19 years of age was born in the Northwest Territories, and has to be filed in both categories simultaneously. Of the 147 articles in the Nunavut category, fully 139 of them are indeed double-filed in both categories -- and of the just eight articles that aren't double-filed, two should be, while the other six are all just hanging on unresolved questions of timing: either their article lacks a reliably sourced birthdate at all, or they were born outside of either territory and the article just fails to specify whether their move to Nunavut happened before or after 1999. And while the NT category has a larger number of people who aren't doubled up, they're still only a quarter of its entries in the first place -- and even then, many of them are also people who were from towns that are now in Nunavut, and would also have been double-filed if not for the fact that they died before 1999. So if 70 per cent of all the entries are double-filed in both categories as it is, and a large chunk of the other 30 per cent are also fuzzy edge cases where double-filing them in both categories could be debated, then that's just not a recipe for a genuinely defining or useful distinction. Entries should certainly be returned to Category:Canadian Inuit people, but there's no value in retaining these as category redirects. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That category isn't for individual people; it's for broad concept articles about Inuit institutions, like the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut and Taqramiut Nipingat. The category you're looking for is Category:Canadian Inuit people, not "Inuit in Canada". Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing prevents any of the articles from being readded to Category:Canadian Inuit people — but a merge proposal or close here would automatically force the retention of these as category-redirects to the target, and I don't see a compelling reason why that would be necessary at all. No matter where a category's entries may need to be readded to, I will only ever propose a merge over a delete if there's a credible reason why the nominated category needs to be maintained as a redirect. The difference between a "merge" or "delete" discussion does not hinge on what other categories the entries might need to be readded to afterward, because that can still be done even if these categories are deleted — the difference between a merge or a delete hinges strictly on whether or not it's necessary to retain the nominated categories as redirects to the other category after closure or not (e.g. in the case of a common spelling error or ENGVAR issue that's likely to be repeated again in the future). Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know merging is unrelated to keeping redirects. The latter is up to the closing admin's discretion. Merging simply means adding the articles of the nominated category to the target(s). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I have to agree with @Marcocapelle. Redirects are a wholly separate issue.
The decision to merge hinges on whether the category being removed captures one or more attributes by which the articles should be categorised, but by which they will cease to be categorised as a result of the deletion. If he answer to that is yes, then merge.
However, I have re-examined these categories, and am changing my !vote to keep both. We have Category:People from Nunavut and Category:People from the Northwest Territories, both of which raise the same issues as the nominator raises here. If we can cope with the provincial reorganisation in categories for non-Inuit people, we can also handle it for Inuit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, unless we merge Inuit people of all Canadian subdivisions (including Newfoundland and Quebec). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The general "People from" categories for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut aren't crossreferencing each other that way, though. They're being used in a much straighter one-or-the-other sense, based on which territory the place they are or were from is in now, and aren't doubling each other on the basis of whether the person was born before 1999 or not — so no, they're not creating the same issue that these are. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2019 (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:Critter of the Week

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 London 21:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category that's serving as an intersection of multiple overcategorization errors. Other than the eponym itself, the only other articles filed here are the program's host, the guest he interviews, and a scientist who gave a presentation about it at a conference but isn't directly associated with it himself. This is not a solid basis for a category -- it's performer by performance for Jesse Mulligan and Nicola Toki, and it's a non-defining indirect association for Mike Dickison. The only other thing that was in the category was an internal Wikiproject task list, but I've already removed it as those are not supposed to be filed in articlespace categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I could debate some of the the assertions made here, but, ho hum... - if it goes, in time the collection of items relating to critter of the week will be organised in some way or other. The actual processes related to the general organisation of the information or articles relating to the radio program and the actual range of critters are of very low interest to the participants in the first place. JarrahTree 23:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Although it's an eponymous category, it's about a radio program, not a person. The program has been going for quite a long time on NZ's national broadcaster, and no doubt a lot of critters with a wiki article have been featured on it. Those wiki articles should be added to the category. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Animals that have been featured on a radio program" wouldn't get added to the category either. Categories have to represent defining characteristics of their contents, not just random factoids — but the critters are not defined by having been profiled on the program. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've come late to this discussion. I can see why JarrahTree set up the category, and I agree that as currently formulated it doesn't really stand. One thing we would like to do is set up a list of species that have featured on Critter of the Week, but doing this as a category perhaps isn't the way to go. "Featured on radio program X" doesn't work, or else every celebrity would have a gigantic list of shows they've appeared on cluttering up their categories. Maybe the best way to do this is in Wikidata. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although a very different show, the list articles in Category:The Simpsons lists might be good to review. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Two of 3 articles make passing reference and Nicola Toki makes no mention. Not defining in practice. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, haha! RevelationDirect (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2019 (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:Indian radio programs

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. @Bearcat and Mathglot: please nominate the necessary television siblings, see below (but not the others – see the contents.) – Fayenatic London 21:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. I'm not an expert on whether "programs" or "programmes" is more normative in Indian English, so I have no personal opinion either way -- but in the past couple of weeks, inexperienced editors have been trying to create "programmes" as a second category that was added to articles alongside "programs". We obviously don't need to maintain two separate categories for the same class of topic which differ only in their spelling, but the category can obviously be renamed if there's a valid WP:ENGVAR reason why the "programmes" spelling should be preferred. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise not an expert in Indian English, but I would think they would follow British English usage. To my surprise, a site:in search for programmes and for programs finds the latter to be more common by a factor of two. I wondered if this might be due to following AE usage for "computer programs" or for Indian websites mirroring U.S. content, so did a more limited search for "program[me]s of study" which brought up lots of Indian university sites; this pair shows the BE spelling to be twice as common. Whatever the result here, consistency should probably apply to these as well:
Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2019 (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:Nepali Musicians

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: speedy merge. – Fayenatic London 22:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Nepalese musicians is already there. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 15:22, 8 February 2019 (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:POV (TV series) films

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 at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 19#Category:POV_(TV_series)_films. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING category. Consists of independent films that later showed as part of this stream. They were not produced for the stream. --woodensuperman 09:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't common practice at all. We never do that. Star Trek: Discovery airs on Netflix worldwide, but it is a CBS show and only categorised as such. Only films that are specifically produced by/for a network (or "stream" in this case) would satisfy WP:NONDEFINING. --woodensuperman
You're pulling a debatable example out exactly because its a streaming series. Downton Abbey is categorized in both Category:ITV television dramas and Category:PBS network shows. This isn't controversial or unusual in the least, especially with PBS programs which pull from both sides of the pond. -- Netoholic @ 10:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PBS were instrumental in the production of Downton Abbey, so that is defining. If they weren't then it shouldn't be categorised as a PBS show. --woodensuperman 10:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that until you removed it just recently, one of our most popular and highly-edited articles Doctor Who has been categorized in Category:PBS network shows since 2007. -- Netoholic @ 19:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:TVCATS: "TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network. Exceptions to this include co-productions (such as The 4400), or when a show changes networks during its original run." --woodensuperman 11:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We do not find it controversial to put an article for a documentary in a category for an award it was selected for. We also do the same for any film festivals it is selected for. So why would we not categorize it for a TV series it was selected for? These are all defining characteristics of a film. -- Netoholic @ 21:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nick Cooper (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)
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:Modern street gangs

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. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, it is not clear what "modern" means here and how Category:Street gangs and Category:Modern street gangs are distinct from each other. Both contain a lot of street gangs that were established in the 20th or 21st century and still exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Illegal enterprises are often hard to date. A gang might get reconstituted (is it "new" but using the same name, a continuation using some original members.) and as gangs become more successful they tend to move off the street and take on a lower profile and be more able to avoid police interference. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (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:Escorts by nationality

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 Category:Canadian escorts to Category:Escorts;
delete Category:Escorts by nationality and Category:American escorts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Also delete two empty subcats Category:American escorts and Category:Canadian escorts. — JFG talk 07:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not to step into all of this, but is there a real distinction between escorts and prostitutes that makes this a hard decision? Liz Read! Talk! 02:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair question, but better be discussed in a fresh nomination of Category:Escorts. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2019 (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.

Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to include the phrase "volleyball seasons" when the conference explicitly includes "Volleyball" in its name, and has sponsored only men's volleyball throughout its history. Parallels current discussion relating to Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association categories here. Note that the category for the 2018 EIVA season ends in just "seasons" instead of "volleyball seasons". — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to comment: Exactly... but no change is needed for any categories other than those relating to the EIVA and MIVA, as no other conference with a season category includes "Volleyball" as part of the conference name. — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2019 (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