From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 11 September 13 >

September 12

Category:City (TV network)

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 09:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Network has recently rebranded back to Citytv, category should be renamed for consistency with updated Citytv article. Requesting here because naming of related parent article was changed too recently to allow for speedy renaming. Add: Expanded nomination to include shows category. RA0808 talk contribs 20:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC); edited 18:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Rebranding back to their original name just a few years after shortening it does seem a remarkably silly thing to do, but it's true, they really did. Torontonian, can confirm. (Can also confirm that nobody whose paycheque wasn't directly issued by Rogers Communications ever actually stopped calling it Citytv in the first place, but that's another story.) Bearcat ( talk) 20:15, 14 September 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:Elves in film

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. There was insufficient support for deletion. ℯ xplicit 02:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: As per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 18#Foo in films --> Films about foo, better to make it clear that categories of this nature are to be applied when a subject is the primary focus of a work of fiction, not an incidental element. DonIago ( talk) 17:16, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Should the category then be pruned as some of these films feature elves but are not about elves? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 22:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Most likely, though it looks like a delete is becoming more likely than a rename in any case. DonIago ( talk) 13:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete suffers the same problems as nearly all "about" categories. How much "about" elves must a film be and what reliable source tells us it's at least that much. And besides, does every Santa Clause movie get categorized here? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 07:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Hehe. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:47, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep With 9 articles and scope for expansion, this is not a small category. Dimadick ( talk) 15:43, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • If not deleted, rename per nom. I am neutral about purging (and consequently, about deletion). Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:17, 17 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or Rename if that is more in line with similar categories. CallyMc ( talk) 22:03, 28 September 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:Archaeologists appearing on Time Team

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. In normal cases PERFCAT is such a strong policy guideline that it would override objections, but participants here have given rationales for treating this as an exception. I will add "regularly" into the category explanation, as that is necessary for the claim that this is WP:DEFINING for the category members. – Fayenatic London 19:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: As a category containing appearances on a television programme, this fails WP:PERFCAT. Could perhaps be converted to Category:Television archaeologists to satisfy the "PERF" part of the guideline. -- wooden superman 14:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Can I ask you to reconsider that, Johnbod? Just looking at the opening sentences of the articles currently in the category, we have:
  • Stewart Ainsworth ... "a British archaeological investigator who was regularly seen on Time Team,"
  • Victor Ambrus ... "became known from his appearances on the Channel 4 television archaeology series Time Team"
  • Robin Bush ... "was the resident historian for the first nine series of Channel 4's archaeology series Time Team"
  • John Gater ... "a British archaeological geophysicist, who has regularly featured on Time Team – the Channel 4 archaeological television series – since 1993"
  • Helen Geake ... "an archaeologist who was one of the key members of Channel 4's popular and long-running archaeology series Time Team"
  • Beric Morley ... "became a familiar face on the Channel 4 television series Time Team"
  • Francis Pryor ... "best known [...] for his frequent appearances on the Channel 4 television series Time Team"
With the exception of Ambrus, Bush and Pryor, I don't think any of them would be notable at all had they not appeared on the programme. –  Joe ( talk) 16:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Ok, but for example I doubt it is defining (now) for Alice Roberts, though no doubt very handy for her career. Where's Guy de la Bédoyère anyway? Johnbod ( talk) 19:02, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Time Team, as it was earlier. Note that this cat creation and CfD are not happening in isolation, but that there are half a dozen discussion threads kicked off about this, and other categories or navboxes, all on broadly the same issue. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
If the category fails WP:PERFCAT, then it should not be upmerged per the guideline: "Note also that performers should not be categorized into a general category which groups topics about a particular performance venue or production (e.g. Category:Star Trek), when the specific performance category would be deleted (e.g. Category:Star Trek script writers)." -- wooden superman 15:21, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
The goal of PERFCAT and FILMNAV are both to avoid clutter, when many people, appear in many roles, but the overlaps between each group are minor. That's not the problem here. With the exception of Alice Roberts (who is now known for far more than this), the link each way is equally significant. For Baldrick, it's a minor role for him, but he's also the anchorman of the series, thus particularly significant to it, as FILMNAV et al. make specific exception for. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Ironically, I created this category in an attempt to reach a compromise with the nominator, who objected to biographies being placed in Category:Time Team, and stated on his talk page that "the defining category would be the type of role they play" (i.e. archaeologist). His suggestion, Category:Television archaeologists doesn't work because none of the members are described as "television archaeologists" in sources, they're described specifically as appearing on Time Team. And I have to say, his IDHT-crusade to enforce WP:PERFCAT universally and inflexibly, even where its rationale doesn't make any sense (how can scholars who appeared in a single work be "overcategorised" by works they appeared in?), is getting quite tiresome.
I would argue that appearing on Time Team is a defining characteristic of most if not all of the members per WP:COPDEF, the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. With one or two exceptions, they are otherwise "run-of-the-mill" working archaeologists or academics that became notable because of their appearance on this television show, which has an extra-ordinary significance in the culture of British archaeology. However, if this category is deleted, its members should certainly be put back into Category:Time Team, which I took them out of to create this. –  Joe ( talk) 16:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Category:Television archaeologists as a substantial watering-down of the purpose of this cat. If anyone thinks that's a notable specialisation amongst archaeologists, then go for it. Here are some candidates to go into it. But it's not a replacement for the cat here. Andy Dingley ( talk) 19:25, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:PERFCAT; presumably, these folks had distinguished curricula vitae prior to being on the show; next we'll have appraisers appearing on Antiques Roadshow, which may be a claim to fame, isn't their notability in the WP sense - we need some independent coverage of those folks, as we do these. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 07:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • @ Carlossuarez46: It's disappointing that you would make an assumption rather than examine the articles or the sources. In fact, with one or two exceptions they are all notable (in the WP sense) because of their appearance on the programme, which led to a level of coverage that ordinary working archaeologists otherwise rarely receive. –  Joe ( talk) 10:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (possibly upmerge to TV, but not to TT). Appearing on TT may be a defining characteristic for some people, but that doesn't trump PERFCAT. The correct place to list the important contributors to a programme is in the article text (where it can be explained, referenced etc). The correct place to list the programmes a person has appeared in is the article about the person (again with details, refs etc). Attempting to use the category system to create a X-appeared-in-Y matrix would be of little use to readers (as the lists are better) whilst causing interminable arguments about how many of the programmes that, for example Alice Roberts or Bettany Hughes, has been in they should be categorized for. DexDor (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- I would add to the definition, probably in the headnote "regularly" appearing, so exclude those who only appeared occasionally. I accept that this technically offends against having performance categories, but several of these are regulars appearing over a long period, so that this is not due to a casual appearance. I can think of a number of other people, some of whom I have met, who appeared occasionally, as a visiting expert, but would not recommend expansion to include them. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Isn't this why Category:Television archaeologists (or similar) is a better option? Adam Woodyatt is only really notable for being in EastEnders, but we categorise him by Category:English male soap opera actors, not Category:EastEnders actors. The fact they are appearing regularly is specifically covered by WP:PERFCAT: "Avoid categorising performers by an appearance at an event or other performance venue. This also includes categorization by performance—even for permanent or recurring roles—in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production". -- wooden superman 11:16, 14 September 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:Millennia in the Burgundian Netherlands

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 the first two (millennia categories), no consensus on the rest. Note: I'm adding Category:Burgundian Netherlands into Category:2nd millennium in Europe after deletion of the millennium category. – Fayenatic London 06:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete. The Burgundian Netherlands started retrospectively in 1384 with the acquirement of only the County of Flanders by Burgundy (but at that time it was entirely unknown that this single acquirement would eventually be expanded to the final territory of the Burgundian Netherlands) and the Burgundian Netherlands ended in 1482. There is certainly no need to diffuse by millennium, all years are within the 2nd millennium. And there is also very little need to diffuse by century, since nearly all years are within the 15th century except for the first 16 years while it only contained the county of Flanders. There is no need to merge, all content is kept in Category:Decades in the Burgundian Netherlands and Category:People of the Burgundian Netherlands. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 14:39, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete both millennia items (one possible member) probably keep the rest or most of them. The alternative is to merge all to Category:Burgundian Netherlands on the basis that the polity did not last long enough to need century splits. Anything here can be parented into trees for Spanish/Austrian Netherlands as their precursor. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • @ Peterkingiron: Your latter alternative option is more extreme than the nomination because it would imply also merging the decade categories which are currently not part of the nomination. Could you elaborate on why you think it is really not an option to just keep the decade categories but delete the century categories? Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:49, 14 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Yes it is more extreme, and probably needs a separate nom. However, none of the decades has more than 4 articles. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:05, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support all per nom. Had too short a history to warrant all this flumery. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 20:18, 15 September 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:Larry Bird

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 11:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OCEPON, with not enough pages or subcategories that are directly related to the subject. We do not need a category to include every season, series, game, cameo role, etc. that included Bird. — Bagumba ( talk) 06:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC) reply
I just thought you can't one without the other Espngeek ( talk) 19:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Espngeek 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:USA Cartoon Express

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 11:08, 19 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Television program block that aired reruns of cartoons; not a defining characteristic. Trivialist ( talk) 01:44, 12 September 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_September_12&oldid=1073191846"