< November 3 November 5 >

November 4

Category:Lesbian-related television 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: merge. I did consider the CFD November 6 closes in coming to this conclusion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Another newly-created MaybeMaybeMaybe category that divides an already small category into what I'm assuming is a planned four miniscule categories. There is nothing in the way that lesbians and gay men were treated on an individual episodic level that justifies splitting them out by sex. I have asked the creator both here and on hir talk page to stop creating these categories until these various discussions are concluded. Buck Winston (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the category creator is not being truthful. I did not remove The One with the Lesbian Wedding but I did remove several others that I believe based on the content were miscategorized by the category creator. There is no rush to populate these categories so I do not understand why the creator cannot save everyone time and trouble by waiting a few days for the outcome of these discussions. Buck Winston (talk) 23:30, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please point to the body of research that suggests that lesbians in individual episodes of television series are portrayed in ways that are so fundamentally different from how gay and bisexual men, bisexual women and transpeople are portrayed that a separate splinter category is warranted. And I will thank you to refrain from falsely ascribing some nefarious motive to me for nominating this category. Such false accusations are an abject failure to assume good faith. Buck Winston (talk) 11:56, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it Category:Lesbian-related media that you are referring to as a splinter category? If you intended to refer to the nominated category, please note that it is an intersection rather than a splinter.
  • Objectively speaking, you have consistently given the appearance described above, by nominating intersection categories to be upmerged to only one of their parent categories. Moreover, your argument against this category seems to support that interpretation of your goal.
  • As for the other editor's action in populating categories under discussion: as I understand it, that is not in breach of any policy, and if anything tends to be desirable in order to show whether a category's existence is justified by its potential population. If we end up with a decision to empty and delete it, then that can be done by a bot and requires very little effort. Note that you have argued WP:SMALLCAT at another CfD on this page; it's not consistent to argue SMALLCAT and request other editors to desist from populating a category during discussion. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I to take it from your failure to cite the body of research that shows that lesbians were treated in a unique fashion on the episodic level that you concede that there is no such body of research? As for the supercategory, I have stated in other CFDs that there are some instances in which lesbian-interest media is markedly distinct from gay male-interest media. That the two sexes are treated differently in some cases does not mean that they should be separated in all cases. There is, again, no evidence that lesbians were treated uniquely at the episode level of television. This category serves no encyclopedic purpose. Buck Winston (talk) 17:29, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have not looked for research into the issue. I just see an intersection category that looks valid to me. If it's too specific an intersection, then it is desirable to upmerge to both parent categories rather than just one, otherwise information is lost from the encyclopedia. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not every possible subset of a larger set warrants a category. There needs to be evidence that the intersection itself is studied. Buck Winston (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2012 (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:British gay-related television programmes

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:British gay-related television programmes to Category:British LGBT-related television programmes and Category:Gay-related television programs. No consensus on whether to delete Category:Gay-related television programs. Once the mergers have taken place, a renomination of Category:Gay-related television programs may be useful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. As with the lesbian-specific categories down the page, these are overcategorization in violation of WP:CATGRS because there is no significant role played by gender in the portrayal of homosexuality on British television. The other category is also nominated for merger. The parent is unnecessary as any shows within it (there are two) can happily be categorized as "LGBT". Not everything has to be split by sex; in fact most things shouldn't be. Buck Winston (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite the body of evidence that indicates that gay males were or are treated so differently in television from gay females and bisexual males that a separate category is warranted. Buck Winston (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no knowledge of the subject; I'm just seeking to preserve information within the encyclopedia, rather than selective upmerge to only one parent category. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps then you should defer to people who do have knowledge of the subject. Buck Winston (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but if we only commented on the basis of personal knowledge rather than applying policies or precedents, who would comment on specialist-subject XfDs like Category:Operator topologies? Nevertheless, I invite the closer to treat my comments with lower weight, as I have not assessed whether any television articles within Category:LGBT-related media should be categorised within Category:Gay (male) media or other specific sexualities; I was just taking a general line on upmerging to both head categories for an intersection category. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This CFD has been open for 26 days, over three times the usual length. That is more than enough time regardless of any technical flaw in the nomination and I object to relisting or starting over. There is clear consensus here for removal of the categories. Buck Winston (talk) 01:35, 1 December 2012 (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:Coal mines in Greater Manchester

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 to Category:Collieries in the Lancashire Coalfield. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To the best of my knowledge there has been only one colliery in Greater Manchester - Agecroft Colliery. Why have a category for only one colliery? Parrot of Doom 22:08, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There may be a case for having a Category:Collieries on the Lancashire Coalfield, but that should not be used to remove these coal mines from Category:Greater Manchester. This category might be better renamed to reflect the fact that they were not in GM when they were operational, but deletion is not he way to solve this anachronism. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason as BrownHairedGirl, I don't really see the need for "Former", but nevertheless I'd be prepared to accept it. -- Dr Greg  talk  21:01, 13 November 2012 (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:Nicole Scherzinger

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--link the categories with ((Catseealso)) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response At the time, there were only two. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:47, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Songs written by Nicole Scherzinger was the other cat but it had been moved inside the songs category there.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 01:43, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
She wrote several pussycat dolls songs and the category now has those in it.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 23:36, 5 November 2012 (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:Provincial capitals in Africa

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:20, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge, per WP:SMALLCAT. Even the parent category is currently quite small. In case that gets fuller, this one could be re-created. There is also no "provinces in Africa", they are all in the generic Category:Country subdivisions of Africa. -- ChemTerm (talk) 10:08, 4 November 2012 (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:ESL editor

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) 03:32, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to sub-categories of Category:User en. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 4 November 2012 (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:Swedish dansband albums

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:Dansband albums. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow--delete and upmerge to both parents. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:03, 4 November 2012 (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:Lesbian-related television programmes

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:British lesbian-related television programmes to Category:British LGBT-related television programmes and Category:Lesbian-related television programmes. Merge Category:American lesbian-related television programs to Category:American LGBT-related television programs and Category:Lesbian-related television programmes. No consensus on whether to delete Category:Lesbian-related television programmes. Once the mergers have taken place, a renomination for Category:Lesbian-related television programmes may be useful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't believe that lesbians are treated so differently from the rest of the LGBT acronym to warrant separating them out. This is also a small category that is unlikely to expand hugely anytime in the near future. since very few series focus specifically on lesbians to the exclusion of gay and bisexual men and bisexual women. Merge the British sub-category to the grandparent Category:British LGBT-related television programmes again because it's small and unlikely to expand and there's litle utility in categorizing the single show separately. Buck Winston (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added the newly-created category for American programs and request that no additional similar categories be created until after the outcome of this nomination. Thanks. Buck Winston (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a compelling argument for keeping. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality which states that a gendered category should only be made if there is a specific relation of the subject to gender. Unless you can point a body of research that shows that female homosexuals are treated differently on television programs either in the US or the UK from how male homosexuals are treated in those same countries this is overcategorization. The only difference in the way the two sexes are portrayed is that in the past lesbians were sometimes, but not usually, allowed to be slightly more physically demonstrative than gay men, but even that has been breaking down as far back as the final season of Will & Grace. The comparison to the film structure is invalid, because there is a lot of research on the differences in how lesbians and gay men were portrayed on screen.
  • regardless, WP:SMALLCAT still applies as these are small categories with little likelihood of significant expansion. Buck Winston (talk) 21:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please cite the body of research that indicates that lesbians in television series are treated significant;y differently from how gay males, bisexual males or females or transgenders of any stripe are treated to justify gendered categorization per WP:CATGRS. Buck Winston (talk) 15:43, 20 November 2012 (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:European LGBT-related television 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming merging Category:European LGBT-related television programs to Category:LGBT-related television programs by country
Nominator's rationale: Rename and repurpose. Other than of course Australia LGBT-related TV shows are not categorized at the continent level. Renaming and repurposing broadens the category and brings it in line with the many other "by country" schemes across Wikipedia. Buck Winston (talk) 01:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as MaybeMaybeMaybe has created the target category, this is now a merge proposal. Buck Winston (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the articles supports the view that the shows are "broadly European", whatever that means. Each lists a specific country of origin (except initially Gay Army which did not until I Googled and added it) and most or all of them are in at least one other category by nationality. If these were divided by country we would have several decently-sized categories to group under a "by country" umbrella and people who are looking for shows for specific nations would be far better served by those than by a nebulous "European" category. Buck Winston (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see my note above, which I was typing simultaneously with yours. Gay Army now has a specific country of origin and one category for that country of origin. The relevant passage now reads Gay Army is a Danish comedy reality television featuring nine effeminate gay men put into the hands of a drill sergeant. The show was first broadcast in Sweden, Norway and Denmark. The show has also been sold to Italy, Germany, Canada, and Poland, although protests led to the show's being cancelled in the latter country before it aired. It would go into a single category, a newly created Category:Danish LGBT-related television programs, so category clutter would not be an issue. And even if it were determined to be a joint project of the three countries, adding three categories what would then be the article's two (with this one gone) would hardly overload it. It's also currently common practice, when a film or TV series has more than one country of origin through international co-production, to include categories for each country of origin and that apparently is not deemed clutterful. Buck Winston (talk) 21:37, 4 November 2012 (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