< February 24 February 26 >

February 25

Television series about gender

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 both. – Fayenatic London 11:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a link to the diffs in case there is scope for a list to be useful. (Apologies for the incorrect link in the edit summaries.) – Fayenatic London 09:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too broad categories, and they are not defining characteristics of the television series. Almost all television series have at least one female and one male main character. Thousands of TV series have female characters as the main protagonist and even more have a male as the main character. I would be open to a more narrow category, such Category:Television series about women's issues/Category:Television series about men's issues or Category:Television series about feminism JDDJS (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2017 (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:American crime drama television series

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 for now without prejudice to renominating together with parent Category:Crime drama television series and siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically all crime series are dramas. redundant to have both cats. JDDJS (talk) 23:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment That's just one exception. Right now, the two cats are a mess, with some articles being in both cats, and some just in the parent, when they belong in the drama subcat, but if everything was categorized correctly, almost all the articles would be in the drama subcat, with just Angie Tribecea, and two or three other exceptions, being in the main category. If anything, there should be a subcat for the crime comedies, because they are the ones that deviate from the norm. JDDJS (talk) 00:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, there isn't just one exception. Just because the commenter only mentioned one example doesn't mean no other examples exist. There are a lot of crime sitcoms: Brooklyn Nine-Nine, Sledge Hammer, Car 54 Where Are You, Public Morals, Barney Miller, Police Squad, The Thin Blue Line, Bakersfield PD, Archer, Reno 911...and then crime reality shows like Cops and America's Most Wanted and Cold Case Files. And at any rate, if the correct answer every time some stuff was getting misfiled in a general parent category instead of a more specific subcategory was to delete the subcategory rather than refiling the misfiled stuff, then the entire category system would have imploded into a "one catch-all category for everything" singularity at least a decade ago. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there'd be no sense in just deleting this subcat.
Articles being in the wrong categories is a commonly used argument to delete cats, but it's not a valid reason. Articles that are in the incorrect cats should be put in the correct cats. Crime drama TV series, such as The Closer are very common and are a distinct genre, which is significantly different to crime comedy TV shows such as Brooklyn Nine-Nine and to crime reality shows such as Cops. Jim Michael (talk) 22:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's very relevant and distinguishing. Crime dramas such as Without a Trace, Cold Case, The Closer etc. are very different to crime comedies such as Angie Tribeca an Brooklyn Nine-Nine. Those articles that are miscategorised should be put in the correct cats. Jim Michael (talk) 05:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That link makes a good case for this cat to exist. It's not a narrow intersection: there are hundreds of such TV shows. It's a commonplace, popular and mainstream genre combination. It, and its parent cats, are large. Similar cats rightfully exist for other genre combinations - such as Category:American comedy-drama television series. These are distinct and common genre combinations. Jim Michael (talk) 21:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The parent categories are not so large that they require diffusing, and on an organizational basis articles should be placed in the most significant category. For example, to most people The Sopranos is a crime series first and foremost, so it is not unreasonable to expect to find it in that category, but diffusing it has taken it out of the category that most people would expect to find it in. Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule or guideline to say that articles should only be in the most significant category. It's stated in the first sentence and the infobox of The Sopranos that it's an American crime drama, so you'd certainly expect it to be in this cat. Jim Michael (talk) 02:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The series is about organized crime so the article should be in the crime category. This is just an extra layer of organization for the sake of an extra layer of organization and I don't really see how it helps editors and readers. Betty Logan (talk) 02:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Crime drama is distinct from criminal comedy, crime documentaries etc. - as I've already explained in this discussion. That's why it's relevant and why subcatting the crime genre is worthwhile. Jim Michael (talk) 03:40, 28 February 2017 (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:Avunculicide in fiction

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 00:57, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Avunculicide in fiction to Category:Familicide in fiction
Nominator's rationale: Not a very common theme in fiction JDDJS (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2017 (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:Gandhi conspirators

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 01:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is to clarify and distinguish from other Gandhi assassinations - of Rajiv Gandhi and of Indira Gandhi. The parent category already makes that distinction Brandmeistertalk 12:36, 25 February 2017 (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.

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people by location

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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 26 – the last one separately. – Fayenatic London 21:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge per WP:NONDEF and WP:SMALLCAT. The voivodeship where these people were born/active is not defining for any of these people. We sometimes categorize people by a non-defining country subdivision if the parent category becomes too big, but that problem does not occur here at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a huge difference between subdivisions of current countries versus subdivisions of former countries. In the latter case it nearly requires WP:OR to determine from which subdivision someone was, and besides when it's long time ago the subdivision is in most cases entirely irrelevant for that person. 13:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
  • This could be discussed in case by case basis. For some people, their province origin might be quite important. For example, Ducal Lithuanian category refers to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and I have known some Lithuanian editors who felt rather strongly regarding making it clear that a person was not just "Polish", but a Lithuanian from the Grand Duchy as well as a "Pole" from the PLC, through I note we don't seem to have a corresponding category for people from Crown of the Kingdom of Poland. (Ping User:Renata3 here, so we can hear more from a Lithuanian editor here on the usefulness of the Ducal Lithuanian category, for example). OR shouldn't be a problem, as long as we know date and place of birth. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:56, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piotrus and Renata3: It would be less of a problem to distinct Polish from Lithuanian people, but the categories above are much more granular. Knowing date and place of birth is not enough to determine voivodeship, it may also require the study of ancient maps which is OR. People in these categories are not simply known for being from a voivodeship, which is why NONDEF applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 19 March 2017 (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.

History of Baghdad

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 (where necessary; some of the contents are already in the targets or a more specific sub-cat). – Fayenatic London 11:38, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one (or occasionally two) articles per category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2017 (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.

National Film Registry categories

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 11:54, 18 March 2017 (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:People from North Omaha, Nebraska

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 12:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with an even weaker justification than the South Omaha category I've nominated below; North Omaha is not described in its article as having been a town or city in its own right at any point in its history, so this is even more of a straight "neighborhood" category. Again, this would make sense if Omaha were the size of New York City and needed borough subcategories for size management purposes -- but if the parent category only has 66 articles in it, then it's not large enough to need diffusion by individual neighborhood. Bearcat (talk) 04:27, 25 February 2017 (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:People from South Omaha, Nebraska

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 as above. – Fayenatic London 12:47, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific subcategory for a neighborhood within a city. While subcatting people by borough makes sense in a major metropolitan city like New York or Montreal for size management reasons, it's not necessary for a midsize city where the main category has just 66 articles after occupational diffusion and the neighborhood category has just eight articles total. While South Omaha was a separate town prior to being annexed by the city in 1915, and some of the people categorized here were alive at that time, I don't see that as enough of a distinction to warrant the category: three of them were still children in 1915, so they were from Regular Omaha by the time they were old enough to vote; two are from Regular Omaha and have no stated or sourced connection to South Omaha anytime prior to the merger; and one is from Regular Omaha and has no stated or sourced connection to South Omaha besides being found there after he was kidnapped. And of the two remainders, one is a living current resident of South Omaha with no claim to being filed here on "he was alive when it was a separate city" grounds. So there's only one person who has a genuinely serious claim on the distinction between "South Omaha the independent town" and "South Omaha the neighborhood within Regular Omaha", in that he was living elsewhere by 1915, and that's not enough to justify a separate category. Bearcat (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2017 (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