Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 20

< May 19 May 21 >

May 20

Category:Mass media theorists

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 4#Category:Mass media theorists

Eponymous Japanese voice actor management company categories

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 4#Eponymous Japanese voice actor management company categories

Category:Wikipedia images in SVG format

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. bibliomaniac15 03:12, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WP:CFDS:

Category:Wikipedia images in SVG format to Category:Valid SVGs – C2D: The template that categorizes here is {{Valid SVG}}. This is not a category for all Wikipedia SVGs, which is why the name is very confusing. See also the linked Wikimedia Commons template which is c:Template:Valid SVG. Jonteemil (talk) 03:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: this is not valid as a Speedy, because it practically reverses a full CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_7#Category:Valid_SVG. – Fayenatic London 08:13, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Yeah, I saw the CFD after I posted this. How do I go about now? File a new CFD?Jonteemil (talk) 08:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jonteemil: Yeah, that's the only way to reverse a decision made at a full discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes please, and please also cover Category:Invalid SVGs. Be prepared for the question "why is this needed at all", as no maintenance is required for {{valid SVG}}, and you could get a list of pages that use it via "what links here". – Fayenatic London 12:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rename proposal in the previous CFD is a valid one, I agree with it. I don't really know why "valid" was removed from the title. When you see the name Category:Wikipedia images in SVG format you would think that it contains all Wikipedia SVG files. However, this isn't the case. There's a minority of SVGs that even uses {{Valid SVG}} or {{Invalid SVG}} for that matter. This fact makes the name of the category very odd.Jonteemil (talk) 15:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonteemil, removal of the word "valid" from the title could be explained by the suggestion of Sillyfolkboy in previous CfD: Invalid ones should be placed in the maintenance categories which can be a child of this new category. —⁠andrybak (talk) 12:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrybak I've added Category:SVGs for cleanup as a child to this category. Now this hierarchy logically makes sense. Probably worth a conversation on the value of a valid SVG category. Personally I see no problem with that. SFB 12:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't bother me too much to just delete the category. That's better than the current solution. I would say that Category:Invalid SVGs should be kept though since it's maintenance category.Jonteemil (talk) 13:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, one can get a list by clicking what lists here, but the category page layout may display the files in a way that's more useful to some. Just because something could be done, doesn't mean that it must be done. Senator2029 “Talk” 01:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as a keep (no consensus to rename), but would like to see firmer discussion on what exactly should be done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 17:51, 20 May 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:WBZ

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. bibliomaniac15 03:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a local radio and television call sign, without the volume of spinoff content needed to justify special treatment. Four of the five entries here are the television and radio stations that either currently have or previously had "WBZ" as their call signs, which makes this a WP:SHAREDNAME violation -- and none of the stations are actually still co-owned with each other anymore, so it can't be argued that it's necessary on "common ownership" grounds: we categorize radio and television stations by their current owner, not by past owners. And the only other article here is a single TV series that was produced by WBZ-TV, which isn't enough content to justify a category by itself if everything else in it is just a four-headed eponym. First discussion is not definitive, as only one person actually participated in it besides the nominator and the real problem with it wasn't even identified by that discussion. Bearcat (talk) 14:25, 20 May 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:WCVB-TV

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 (talk) 09:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for an individual television station, populated primarily by individual people who've worked for it in defiance of WP:PERFCAT. Once they're removed, there are a handful of things left that were nationally syndicated shows or movies in which the station held a production role -- but we still don't categorize syndicated programs by every individual television station that carried them, because that would lead to extreme category bloat, and there aren't nearly enough such shows to make this television station more special than other television stations that aren't getting eponymous categories. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We do have PBS stations under Category:American television series by studio grouping shows produced by a station. If kept, this is likely where this belongs. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 26 May 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:KYW-TV

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. bibliomaniac15 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for an individual television station, which other than the eponym itself is populated entirely by past or present staff of that station. This is a WP:PERFCAT violation, however: because people can move around to different television or radio stations over the course of their careers, this would lead to extreme category bloat if people were categorized for every individual television station they had ever worked for. Bearcat (talk) 13:58, 20 May 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:Video game cover athletes

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. bibliomaniac15 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being featured in publicity for a video game is non-defining. User:Namiba 13:43, 20 May 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:Pejorative terms for European 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: keep. bibliomaniac15 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More concise title. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:22, 20 May 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:YouTube critics and reviewers

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. bibliomaniac15 03:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Are 'critics' and 'reviewers' the same thing? If not, then two categories are needed. Adding 'content' makes it clear that the criticism is not about the platform. Fuddle (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not a defining characteristic for the two articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment & Keep, I would not rename this Critics of YouTube content (although that could be a category on its own merit, for sure). Also, I'm not sure about Arin Hanson, but this is absolutely a defining category for Anthony Fantano. Category "is for YouTubers who publish video reviews about films, music, video games, etc." It describes their content. Just as there's a "Gaming YouTubers" category for YouTubers who are defined by publishing gaming content, this is for YouTubers who are defined by publishing review content. Easy Keep for me. Soulbust (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and keep. I am an arts reviewer by profession. I am not an art critic. A reviewer gives details of what an be found and an overall analysis; a critic points out the good and bad features of something. The two designations overlap considerably however, so having one category for both makes sense. Grutness...wha? 03:22, 21 May 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.