< October 4 October 6 >

October 5

Category:Living Greyhawk

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. MER-C 18:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary tiny category TTN (talk) 21:00, 5 October 2020 (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:Films whose writer won the Best British Screenplay BAFTA Award

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. MER-C 18:26, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Films whose writer won the Best British Screenplay BAFTA Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Possible rename. Poor phrasing to begin with; films aren't people. Also unclear...is the category supposed to be applied for films in cases where the writer of the film won the award? We have a few different BAFTA-related categories that I saw, but none with the name of the category structured in this manner. I might have specifically suggested a Rename instead, but I'm not sure what an appropriate Rename would look like. DonIago (talk) 16:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, just delete the category. We don't need both and - as I said - a list makes more sense. Grutness...wha? 15:53, 6 October 2020 (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:Victoria Vikes

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. MER-C 18:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Significant cluster of eponymous categories for sports teams, without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant eponymous categories: other than the eponyms, the only other thing that was in any of these categories is the .png's of the teams' logos — which are already in the article's infoboxes anyway, so don't need categories to link them with the articles they're already used in, and aren't supposed to be in any categories that mix images with mainspace articles anyway, so I've already had to remove them as part of a massive cleanup of excessive image gallerying in the entire Category:U Sports tree. As always, the rule is not that every sports team automatically gets an eponymous category just because it exists: these are only warranted if there's a significantly greater volume of spinoff content than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2020 (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.

Years and decades in Punjabi cinema

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. MER-C 18:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
24 more year-in categories
    • Category:1972 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:1973 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:1974 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:1975 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:1976 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:1977 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:1981 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2000 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2001 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2003 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2004 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2005 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2006 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2007 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2008 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2009 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2010 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2011 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2012 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2013 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2014 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2015 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2016 in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2017 in Punjabi cinema
7 more decade-in categories
    • Category:1940s in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:1950s in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:1960s in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:1970s in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:1980s in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2000s in Punjabi cinema
    • Category:2010s in Punjabi cinema
Nominator's rationale: pointless WP:SMALLCATs. This entire set of categories contains only list articles which are already adequately categorised in Category:Lists of Punjabi films by year and Category:Lists of Punjabi films by decade. Each of the year categories contains only one article, and each of the decade categories contains only one list plus year categories.
These categories are also misconceived: Category:Punjabi cinema by year is a subcat of Category:Film by country and year, but the Punjab is not regarded as a country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:08, 5 October 2020 (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:Azteca 7 affiliates

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 31#Category:Azteca 7 affiliates

Category:Pages using deprecated image syntax

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category's self-justification that
infoboxes using Module:InfoboxImage with image syntax in the format |image=[[File:Example.jpg]] ... should be changed to the format |image=Example.jpg
is in direct contradiction to WP:IBI, which instructs that
If InfoboxImage is not yet fully implemented in the infobox you are using, the same alt=, upright=, title=, etc., parameters may be called using Extended image syntax ...
EEng 05:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edited to add: see change below) as a valid deprecated usage tracking category. I have added a note to the category page explaining how editors can request fixes for infoboxes that need additional parameters. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:30, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Where do you get that the syntax is deprecated? WP:IBI explicitly recommends it. EEng 18:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh I see: you changed IBI to make is sound like the syntax is deprecated. I changed it back. I also changed the text in the category itself to make it clear that the extended image syntax shouldn't be removed unlessn and until the appropriate parameters are available in the infobox itself to preserve what's presented to the reader. With that clarification in place I'm happy to withdraw this nomination. EEng 19:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a bit of a mystery to me. The category has been around as long as I have been editing WP on a regular basis (2013), so I assumed that it had been created after a consensus discussion. The best I can find after digging for a bit is this 2012 talk page archive, where there was an active effort to convert infoboxen to support "bare filenames". Before that, things get foggy. Some of the key players are still around, so they might be pingable from the category's talk page to find out if they know where any previous discussions happened. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:13, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Look specifically at which editor actually created the category [4], then look at the last two bullet points of [5], and I think you'll know all you need to know. EEng 06:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I found an article where this caught something. This is an example of an image being displayed oversize because of the syntax used. MB 03:14, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely irrelevant. The image is oversized because frameless was omitted. EEng 03:35, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This syntax caused the infobox image to be smaller (probably unintentionally) than the default for this infobox. The documentation for ((infobox motorcycle)) gives an explanation of why "plain" syntax is preferable for consistency. MB 03:40, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's great for an infobox that includes all the necessary parameters such as upright and alt. For the rest, extended image syntax is needed. EEng 05:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Karolin Ohlsson has an infobox image off-center because it is specified with "right". This can't happen if the File syntax is deprecated. MB 03:45, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ogri is another with an oversize image. MB 03:48, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bobbie's Girl is a bit ambiguous. It has had "File" syntax, then an editor added |upright=1.0 which of course has no effect. I can't guess what the intent was, but this does illustrate what appears to be an unintentional conflict. MB 04:05, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kearney Air Force Base is using the "File" syntax to force a caption for |ensign= that is apparently intended to left uncaptioned because the authors of ((Infobox military structure)) have not provided a parameter for one. MB 04:12, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is all completely ridiculous. Your reasoning seems to be that since that it's possible to make mistakes using the extended syntax, that justifies getting rid of it, despite the fact that it's often the only way to do certain quite desirable things, such as upright sizing and alt text. If you want to have categories catching specific issues such as omission of frameless, fine. Anyway, this isn't the place to have a discussion on deprecating the syntax; either you can show it's deprecated or (as seems to be the case) you can't. EEng 05:38, 18 October 2020 (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:Radio Free Roscoe

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 31#Category:Radio Free Roscoe

Category:Life with Derek

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. MER-C 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a television series without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant an eponymous category. This just contains the eponym and a spinoff movie, and the only other thing we have that could be added is an episode list -- but a television series has to have a lot more than just two related pages before it needs one of these. Both of them are already linked in the main article's body text anyway, so no information will be lost. As always, every TV show does not always automatically get one of these just because it exists. Bearcat (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2020 (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.

Periodical people

Category:The Sunday Business Post 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: rename. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Business Post. This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2020 (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:Focus 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: rename. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Focus (German magazine). This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2020 (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:Cosmos (magazine) 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: rename. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Cosmos (Australian magazine). This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 5 October 2020 (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:Australian Geographic (magazine) 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: rename. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Australian Geographic. This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 5 October 2020 (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:Mojo 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: rename. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Mojo (magazine). This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2020 (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:Country Life 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: rename. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is Country Life (magazine). This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2020 (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:Minneapolis Star-Tribune 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: rename. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article is now at Star Tribune. This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:31, 5 October 2020 (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 Stranger 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: rename. MER-C 18:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is at Category:The Stranger (newspaper) and the main article is The Stranger (newspaper). This qualifies as C2D speedy but I have seen some recent resistance against that criterion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2020 (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