Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 15

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Welsh-language television shows to Category:Welsh-language television programmes

Nominator's rationale: The category was recently renamed as part of a blanket move which did not consider the requirements of individual countries and languages. The equivalent term in the Welsh language is "rhaglen" (programme) whereas "sioe" (show) is reserved for live entertainment. Deb (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good catch Deb! Category:S4C television shows looks as if it could receive the same treatment.† Encyclopædius 11:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WP:C2C: consistency with Category:Television shows, Category:British television shows, Category:Welsh television shows, everything in Category:Television shows by language, not to mention a cfd and a move review, all of whose closers discounted arguments such as this one. Oculi (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also worth mentioning that the intro to Category:Welsh-language television shows reads "Television shows originally written and performed in the Welsh language" and has done for many years. Oculi (talk) 12:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per local usage, which usually overrides C2C. The British category contains a mix of "show" and "programme" categories, and "programme" makes more sense there, too. Grutness...wha? 12:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Grutness, there were lots of categories, so the renaming process is not complete. The mix is being resolved.
    And per my reply below to Deb, the decision at WP:CFD/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s was clearly to apply MOS:COMMONALITY, and to adopt a term common to all variants of English. I accept that you may not have been aware of that, because Deb's WP:FORUMSHOPPING tactics extended even to a failure to link to the previous CFD ... but please, will you review your !vote? It's very bad practice to immediately try to overturn a consensus decision. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's true, of course - though the term programme is generally more inclusive. The term show is used, but implies a live variety programme (and that seems to be the only use of the term in Welsh). I have a feeling I may be partly to blame for this, having argued for "show" in the first lace. I have since realised I was wrong in doing that. :/ Perhaps, given the recent change-over, the British ones should also change to show (though the Welsh one, for the reason mentioned, may be a problem) - but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a move to change them back at some point in the future. Grutness...wha? 18:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Grutness, if there is a move to change them back, it should be proposed as a properly-notified group nomination of all relevant categories, which explicitly links the previous discussion and notes the relevant policies such as MOS:COMMONALITY and the WP:COMMONNAME requirement to derive page titles from independent, reliable English-language sources ... not from the Welsh language. It should also notify all particpants in the previous CFD.
        This nomination is a blatantly, disruptive, policy-defying exercise in forumshopping ... and their post below of 16:41, 5 July nominator Deb has explicitly asserted WP:OWNership of this category. I find it very sad that some editors seem willing to indulge Deb's determination to trample all over multiple aspects of policy, rather than calling on her conduct herself in accordance with WP:ADMINCOND by following policies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had no idea about any of that - and you're right that if this an attempt at WP:OWN then I do indeed frown upon it. But that doesn't change the fact that English, as spoken in Wales, is heavily influenced by Welsh, and it appears that the word "show" is not used in the context it is used in this category title within Wales - something which I've no doubt that no-one who dealt with the previous CfD discussions was aware of. Unfortunately, since the term television show is used, but in a different context, using ghits to determine usage becomes impossible and irrelevant. Given the recency of the change, however, this should not have been brought there, but should have taken it to some form of arbitration. Grutness...wha? 04:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Grutness, what do you mean by term television show is used, but in a different context? What other context is there? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • As explained, it refers to live shows, variety shows and the like, but not to drama, comedy, or news/crrent affairs programming. Grutness...wha? 18:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Grutness, you have and other have asserted that. But nobody has produced a single shred of evidence that English-language reliable sources writing about Welsh-language TV apply such a distinction, let alone demonstrated a consistent pattern. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, for three reasons:

1. to maintain consistency per MOS:COMMONALITY, as agreed at WP:CFD/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s. The whole point of that decision was to avoid WP:ENGVAR variations, and use a common term.
2. This is the English-language Wikipedia. The en.wp policy is therefore use the terminology used in:

   independent, reliable English-language sources

   . The Welsh-language terminology is irrelevant to the naming of this category.
3. because Deb's objections were discussed at length at WP:CFD/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s. Deb offered no non-cherrypicked evidence in support of her view, but I produced plenty of evidence that "show" is commonly used in Wales.
   Therefore Deb's assertion in the nomination that the May CFD was a blanket move which did not consider the requirements of individual countries and languages is a blatant falsehood: the discusion considered that view, and rejected it. The falsehood of that statement will have been clearly known by Deb to be a blatant falsehood. Deb is an admin, and should follow a higher standard of conduct than asserting untruths in pursuit of blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING.

The May CFD was subject to a move review, which closed yesterday. The resulting category renamings are happening today. Deb made this nominaton at 08:15[1], only 6 hours after the category was renamed per conssensus.[2] by the bot at 02:15.

This immediate re-nomination is blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING. I ask Deb to promptly withdraw it, or I'll take this to ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Maybe you've forgotten that the move discussion was closed "for now" and "with no prejudice against future discussion" and that the closer, User:bibliomaniac15, commented that "there are some deeper issues involving WP:ENGVAR at play that I do not think that CFD is the right venue to handle". He also urged "BHG to not give in to the need to comment on every single oppose with an inflammatory tone", which you're already doing. You've also accused me of lying and, in the light of that, I would suggest you re-read Wikipedia:Assume good faith. Of course I re-nominated immediately - what would you expect me to do about a category that I was mainly responsible for populating and that was uncontroversially moved to the proposed title less than three years ago? Deb (talk) 16:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sigh, here we go again. Let's not have endless back and forths again, please, and let's keep our shirts on. I really think that the better place to have this discussion between show/series/program/programme is in an RFC, because we have different usages all over Wikipedia between articlespace, categories, and projectspace. This was the case even before the big May CFD, which was one of many discussions on this topic. It would be best if we could talk about this in an overall, project-wide sense regarding usage in all spaces and see what the community thinks. If consensus is to stick to one usage all over the project, great. If consensus is to allow flexibility in considering regional variants or different projectspaces, great. Can we try to move this to a venue where we can come to a more conclusive decision about what to do? bibliomaniac15 19:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem with that is that the arguments in favour of moving individual categories will never be heard or will be considered unimportant in the "grand" scheme of things. Deb (talk) 20:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem here is simply than we have an admin Deb who is engaging in blatant disruption.
          Policy is very clear that we follow usage in English-language sources ... but Deb is basing her argument on use in another language.
          The consensus at the May RFC was to follow MOS:COMMONALITY ... but Deb is blatantly ignoring that by insisting on a variation.
          The policy on WP:FORUMSHOPPING is very clear, but Deb has chosen to reopen this issue only hours after the closure of a review of the CFD where DEb's argument for variations was heard and rejected.
          Deb is also engaging in explicit WP:OWNership I re-nominated immediately - what would you expect me to do about a category that I was mainly responsible for populating.
          Deb also chose to misrepresent the close of the May CFD, cherrypicking phrases which suit Deb's purpose ... but ignoring the closes's explicit statement no such nominations be made (other than to pick up any potential omissions from this nomination) for two months from today.. "Today" was 28th May, which is less than 2 months ago; and this category was not omitted.
          Deb accuses me failing to AGF, but ignores WP:DGF. For example, if Deb was demonstrating good faith they would have noted in their nomination that their proposal beaches policy, and they would have linked to the previous discussion ... they wouldn't display WP:OWNwership.
          On the contrary, Deb's conduct here repeatedly demonstrates bad faith, and repeatedly ignores multiple points of explicit policy ... so no, I don't sustain the assumption of good faith in the face of such clear evidence of bad faith. Deb is overtly flouting three policies (WP:FORUMSHOPPING, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OWN), and is cherrypicking a close in order to misrepresent it; sneakily omitted in their nomination to even link to the previous discussion; failed to notify the participants in the previous CFD (which is another aspect of forum shopping). This is sort of disruption which we usually see from an angry newbie, but Deb has been an admin for 17 years, and has no excuse. So I ask Deb again to withdraw this nomination ... or this will have to be escalated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- No Welshman or woman would choose American spelling rather than English, when most are in practice bilingual with British English as the other language. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe 'show' is spelt the same everywhere. (But I do recall it being spelt 'shew' as a verb in geometry in the 1960s.) Oculi (talk) 19:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and by British Railways. Thincat (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Support There is no such thing as a Welsh language Television "show", things on TV (and radio) in Welsh are "Rhaglen" (programme), show (sioe in Welsh) would either be a live performance or a show of animals. I'm not even convinced that "show" should be used in reference to TV, radio or traditional drama for anything on UK TV, the term is an Americanism, as alien as Color, Labor, etc, this side of the pond AlwynapHuw (talk) 03:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The acceptability of "show" in all major variants of English was demonstrated by extensive, detailed evidence presented at WP:CFD/2020 May 6#Television_program(me)s. That CFD closed as rename to show.
    And the policy (not guideline, but policy) at WP:COMMONNAME is clear that titles are based on usage in

    independent, reliable English-language sources

    . The Welsh-language terminology is irrelevant to the naming of this category, and the May CFD contains clear evidence that "show" is used in Wales slightky more than he combined usage for "program"+"programme". Here's copy-paste of that evidence:

I tested usage in English-language sources in Wales, using two newspapers: Western Mail as the only national newspaper in Wales, and the Daily Post as the biggest-circulation regional newspaper.

Both sources show a narrow majority for "show" over "program"+"programme": "show" gets 51.7% of all the hits on the Western Mail, and 52.1% of all hits on the Daily Post.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I previously pointed out, you didn't use the Western Mail - you used WalesOnline. Deb (talk) 10:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb, see https://www.walesonline.co.uk/about-us/ -- it uses articles from the Western Mail and the South Wales Echo. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that you no longer defy policy by basing your case on use in the Welsh language, tho it's sad to see that you have not struck that part of the nomination. So do you have any non-cherrypicked evidence to demonstrate that writers about TV in Wales use difft terminology when writing about Welsh-language TV, and "television show" is not acceptable in English-language coverage of Welsh-language TV? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your cherry-picked statistics don't take any account of context. Deb (talk) 19:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deb, if you have some evidence of how usage changes with context, then please present it.

Your allegation that I have engaged in "cherrypicking" is unsupported by any explanation of how I am alleged to have cherrypicked. I picked the major news sources in Wales, and if you have a better suggestion for how to search, let's hear it. But your unsupported allegation is just muckslinging, more the same shoddy conduct you have displayed throughout this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just look at the articles on Welsh-language TV programmes and see how many of them use the word "programme" and how many use the word "show" to describe a non-entertainment programme? Deb (talk) 07:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:48, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that I saw a news item a while back that said that Wikipedia had decided not to use tabloid news papers as a reliable source. Your statistics are also incorrect. Many of the "tv show" references don't come from articles, but from click bait adverts generated by the articles, many of which come from US sources. In British English a broadcast on TV or radio is, and always has been, a "programme". To say "The Welsh-language terminology is irrelevant" with regard to Welsh language programmes is insensitive, hurtful, extremely bigoted and ridiculous. AlwynapHuw (talk) 03:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlwynapHuw, the Welsh-langauge terminology is highly-relevant when writing in Welsh. But this is the English-language Wikipedia, so policy at WP:AT is to use English-language reliable sources.

You assertion that In British English a broadcast on TV or radio is, and always has been, a "programme" is demonstrably false. Masses of evidence was presented at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_May_6#Television_program(me)s that "show" is very widely used. I guess you may not have seen that evidence, but you should check the evidence before asserting "facts" which are provably false. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the recently closed CFD. It is certainly asinine to see this nomination opened so quick on the heels of that discussion, and without taking into consideration the discussion then (even though the nominator was the one who dragged that discussion to move review). --Izno (talk) 21:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - local usage overrides C2C; facts should always overide 'cosistency'. And from what I see, above, there's only one user pushing the 'oppose' side. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 07:43, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• While it is correct that local usage overrides C2C, "show" is also used locally, as discussed before. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not a fan of the word "show" and would have preferred something else, but starting to dismantle the consistency piece by piece is a horrible idea that I firmly oppose. --Gonnym (talk) 09:12, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (but do not reparent) -- This (perhaps surprisingly) is partly an ENGVAR. Welsh might be expected to follow British English, where the usual term is "programme". Local usage should always prevail over imposing an (American) consistency. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peterkingiron has already made these remarks, in the above thread. Oculi (talk) 10:34, 17 August 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.

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 11:21, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:&TV television series to Category:&TV original programming
• Category:10 Bold shows to Category:10 Bold original programming

Nominator's rationale: The current naming of sub-categories in Category:Television series by network is very inconsistent, using 10 different styles (that I've noticed; see below). I've chosen to propose the usage be "original programming" for a few reasons:

1. To be WP:CONSISTENT with the result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 22#American television series by network and is also the style used by Category:Original programming by streaming service subcategories.
2. Usage of "original" makes the category clear what type of members it should have as per MOS:TVCATS: TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network, meaning that all members of the categories should be only original programming and not re-runs, syndication, etc.
3. Using "programming" also solves another issue of clarity as categories that use "series" also have "TV programs" added to them.

The only other additional change in the categories above is fixing disambiguation where it didn't match the article per WP:C2D. Gonnym (talk) 11:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• User:BrownHairedGirl is assisting with tagging the categories, which should happen soon. --Gonnym (talk) 11:28, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagging. I have tagged all the categories, in these 392 edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of Television series and network original programming

please add comments and !votes here

• Support. This is a helpful standardisation of terminology, grouping the various types of content under the single title "original programming". Thanks to Gonnym for doing the hard work of making the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, 'original programming' is a clearer descriptor of the content of these categories than 'shows'. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is a long-overdue standardization which works nicely for all forms of English. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:05, 21 August 2020 (UTC)\[reply]
• Support. It looks much cleaner with 'original programming' than 'shows'. However, for Category:5 (TV channel) shows, please consider renaming to Category:TV5 (Philippine TV channel) original programming as 5 has reverted back to TV5, in lineup for new entertainment programs. David Isaac C. M. (talk) 02:24, 21 August 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.

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; this close is without prejudice to a future nomination of one or more of the nominated categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

• Category:Mayors of IJsselstein to Category:People from IJsselstein‎ and Category:Mayors in Utrecht (province)
• Category:Mayors of Incheon to Category:People from Incheon‎ and Category:Mayors of places in South Korea
• Category:Mayors of Innsbruck to Category:Politicians from Innsbruck‎ and Category:Mayors of places in Austria
• Category:Mayors of Jabalpur to Category:People from Jabalpur‎ and Category:Mayors of places in Madhya Pradesh‎
• Category:Mayors of Jining to Category:Politicians from Jining‎ and Category:Mayors of places in China

• Category:Mayors of Waitemata City to Category:Mayors of places in the Auckland Region
• Category:Mayors of Weert to Category:People from Weert‎ and Category:Mayors in Limburg (Netherlands)
• Category:Mayors of Weesp to Category:People from Weesp‎ and Category:Mayors in North Holland
• Category:Mayors of Zaporizhzhia to Category:People from Zaporizhzhia‎ and Category:Mayors of places in Ukraine
• Category:Mayors of Zoetermeer to Category:People from Zoetermeer‎ and Category:Mayors in South Holland

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion and this earlier discussion; @BrownHairedGirl, WilliamJE, and ItsPugle: pinging contributors to those discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support :) ItsPugle (please use {{ping|ItsPugle}} on reply) 09:29, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose WP:SMALLCAT specifically states that it excludes "a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time", which seems to be the case for at least many of these. The results from a few that I checked:
  • The Karviná category currently only has one mayor with an enwiki article, but the cswiki category has 3 other mayors who look like they meet enwiki notability standards (and there have been other mayors of the city, who are also likely notable). Karviná is a sizable city with at least one local newspaper, and it's reasonable to expect new mayors will be elected in future.
  • Dewiki category de:Kategorie:Bürgermeister (Innsbruck) has more than 10 articles (and dewiki generally has fairly high notability standards)
  • There are likewise more than 10 members of nl:Categorie:Burgemeester van IJsselstein. IJsselstein has a long history, having received city rights in 1331.
• Therefore, I conclude that this is at least a WP:TRAINWRECK (and quite possibly, few or none of these should be deleted). (t · c) buidhe 19:13, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose. I want to start out with the proviso that mayor of a city is not an "inherently" notable position that guarantees an article, so mayor categories aren't exempted from WP:SMALLCAT on the grounds that further expansion might be possible in the future — mayor-of-individual-city categories are the type where at least five or six articles have to already exist before the category is allowed to be created, because there's no universal guarantee that mayors are always notable enough to earn articles and thus no guarantee that the categories can consistently be lifted past the SMALLCAT bar. (The "holders of a notable political office" condition was meant for inherently notable positions like prime ministers and members of the legislature, not necessarily every political office that exists.) That said, the sheer number of categories that have been batched here makes this essentially unjusticiable — some of these may not be possible to salvage, but others may be, so it's virtually impossible to issue a blanket judgement on all of them at once. Accordingly, I can't support this as constituted, and would recommend that they be renominated in smaller batches (e.g. one batch per country, or per subnational unit where necessary, instead of one giant international omnibus batch) so that we can keep the discussions manageable. Bearcat (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - editors should not create such categories unless they can find 4 or 5 articles to put in them. Oculi (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose trainwreck nomination of categories. 122.60.68.57 (talk) 09:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. While most places that has mayors can be expected to have 5 mayors, many will not be notable so there is no expectation that every one will have a category. No opposition to recreating any categories if they ever reach 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk)

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.

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 rename WP:C2C with Category:Unassessed chess articles of Low-importance and Category:Unassessed chess articles of Unknown-importance. The target name is currently what is generated by putting {{WikiProject Chess|importance=mid}} on an article talk page. – Fayenatic London 19:53, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Unassessed-Class chess articles of Mid-importance to Category:Unassessed chess articles of Mid-importance

Nominator's rationale: Correct name (see, for example, Category:Unassessed chess articles‎). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, also aligning with Category:Unassessed articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 15 August 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.

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 12:31, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Highlander (franchise) episodes to Category:Highlander (franchise) television series

Nominator's rationale: or upmerge the lists, and rename to Category:Highlander: The Series seasons. None of the 8 articles in this category are episodes. 6 are season articles and 2 are list of episode articles . Gonnym (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 15 August 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:German Jewish communities to Category:Jewish communities in Germany

Nominator's rationale: I suggest renaming it to this form per the standard seen in Category:Historic Jewish communities in Europe and Category:Jewish communities. Or perhaps Category:Historic Jewish communities in Germany would be better per the rationale in the Category:Historic Jewish communities._{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Adding "historic" might indeed be better still. Johnbod (talk) 16:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Category:Jewish German history by city would be a more accurate description of the category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 15 August 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Jewish communities in Poland to Category:Historic Jewish communities in Poland

Nominator's rationale: I recently created this but per rationale in Category:Historic Jewish communities I think this should be renamed. Or perhaps it could remain as a parent category, since there probably is some sort of small re-emergent Jewish community in biggest Polish cities these days, but I don't think we have Wikiepdia articles on this yet, and pretty much all articles here about former Jewish communities that ended with the Holocaust. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge, for example Chortkiv is a modern city in Ukraine, not defined by having had a Jewish community in the past. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "Historic" makes more sense considering the Holocaust in Poland.--Darwinek (talk) 16:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not all of these places were in Poland at the relevant period.  Rathfelder (talk) 15:33, 16 August 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.

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, without prejudice to future creation of Category:Gambier-Parry family. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:42, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hubert Parry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for a single sub-category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 04:48, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The category now has the subcat and 7 members, as his close relations have been added. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEF. The articles in this category contain virtually no information about Hubert Parry. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• ​​​ how about renaming and repurposing as another Category:Parry family (note, that page is already a disambiguation page)? – Fayenatic London 20:04, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok with that. Johnbod (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We'd better not create another family category for a family that has not acquired notability by themselves. There are too many of them already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it's Tijd-jp (talk · contribs) who first created it (as an unnecessary WP:EPONYMOUS category) and has now populated it as a family category following this nomination. We'd only be renaming it according to the new purpose; presumably it would be Category:Gambier-Parry family, as mentioned at Highnam Court. – Fayenatic London 13:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is true, though my first preference remains deletion, if kept rename to Category:Gambier-Parry family. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also ok with that. Johnbod (talk) 23:20, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean Toward Delete This definitely has nothing but the main article and the subcategory as an eponymous category. (No opposition to converting to Category:Gambier-Parry family if that has consensus though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 2 November 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.

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 11:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bunkface (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. A eponymous parent category simply for an group's albums category and the cover art for those albums. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:11, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 15 August 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.