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 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:Grand Masters
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OVERCAT. The pages in the main cat are not people, but general subject articles (positions), while the subcats *are* specific people and further subcats, so the usage of this cat is too vague. None of the groups listed are interrelated in any way other than by having an office of that title, which is a trivial connection. MSJapan (talk) 18:17, 15 October 2015 (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:Notre Dame–USC football rivalry
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.
Delete is a better choice, both for reasons of SMALLCAT and as both of the articles in this cat should be in their parent cats already. MSJapan (talk) 18:19, 15 October 2015 (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:Asian diaspora in France
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.
Change level - upmerge is unnecessary; all articles in this cat already exist in the parent, aside from the Middle Eastern ethnic articles, which don't belong in here anyhow, as Arabs don't identify as "Asian". I've removed those. However, "Asian French" are not quite the same as "Asians in France", and we seem to use "X diaspora in Y country" as a cat title for this sort of thing, so I think we have the right title at the wrong category level. MSJapan (talk) 18:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per well-developed diaspora tree (see comment of [[User:Fayenatic london), and because both nominated category and target category are all about diaspora (see comment of User:MSJapan). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, I support the proposal to reverse merge the parent into this category. Merging a parent to a sub-cat needs manual care – I'm willing if help is needed. – FayenaticLondon22:30, 14 December 2015 (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:Network O&O
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.
Nominator's rationale: This category is just for television stations, and the opaque abbreviation "O&O" means "owned-and-operated", so the abbreviation should be expanded, and the scope should be clarified, as this does not include radio stations, which also use this terminology. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:33, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point was to exclude radio stations. And O&O stations are not exclusive to the United States, there are many in Canada (the entire CBC network, and most stations in the CTV network) And in Britain, for the entire BBC network. We should easily be able to expand to coverage of other countries. I don't know of current categories that mixes radio and television stations together into the same category for categories that are not about specific corporations, since radio and TV stations have separate category trees. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm wondering if deletion would be better with no objection to recreating a Canadian, radio or global TV category later. Both of us are basing the proposed rename on what it might be used for later; for now, almost all the existing contents should be downmerged. (No objection to the proposed rename as an improvement of the status quo though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 19:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There would be no value in an equivalent Canadian category, because nearly all television stations in Canada are O&O's of their associated networks — it would effectively just be a pointlessly redundant supercategory for nearly all Canadian television stations, kind of like "Novelists who wrote novels" or "Universities which offer university courses". Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (if kept, Support) with no objection to creating similar (but better named categories) later. Bearcat has pushed me off the fence. If kept, then rename per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom as a first step, simply because the current name is far from clear. No opinion on what should then be done, but RevelationDirect's rationale (which seems to not really line up with his vote) does propose a fairly viable cleanup. —烏Γ(kaw), 19:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As currently constituted, almost every single thing that was sitting in this category was already sitting in Category:Owned-and-operated television stations in the United States or a subcategory of that anyway — except for one radio station and the head article about the overarching concept, it was otherwise unnecessary duplicate categorization right across the board. And equivalent categories for Canada or the United Kingdom wouldn't even be valuable things for us to maintain, since in both of those countries O&O is the norm and "private affiliate" is the rare exception to the rule rather than vice versa. There might be some other country where a parallel category might actually be warranted and useful, but for both Canada and the UK it would be an unnecessarily redundant point of categorization that would encompass almost all television stations that exist at all. So for the moment, the US subcategory doesn't really need a non-country-specific master category, because it doesn't and isn't going to have any other country-specific siblings to share that parent with. Delete, without prejudice against recreation under a better name in the future if there are any other countries for which this would be a useful or valuable point of categorization. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are many independent TV stations in Canada, and many defunct stations that were part of CTV that were not owned by CTV, since CTV did not buy up its affiliated stations until the 21st century, and prior to that event most of the stations were not owned and operated by CTV (for instance, Baton Broadcasting System in Eastern Ontario was not owned by CTV), so I think there's quite a number of stations involved in Canada. Further, with ITV in the UK, they are non network owned. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say "all", I said "nearly all" — the number of Canadian television stations that would actually not be included in such a category is maybe 15 per cent of the total at most, and there's very little value as a rule in subcategorizing on a characteristic that's shared by 80-90 per cent of its parent category (which is why, for example, we don't have a category for Category:Black Jamaicans or for Category:Male heads of state). It might be possible to justify a category for the non-O&O stations, because they're the minority topic, but a category for the O&Os would just comprise 85 per cent of all the stations that exist. And the fact that a station may have previously been a non-O&O affiliate of its network would not exclude it from this category — if that station is an O&O now, then it would go in a Canadian O&O's category regardless of its former ownership status. And while you're correct about how ITV used to be structured, I think you need to read ITV plc — as of 2004, very nearly all of the ITV stations are owned by a division of the same parent company as the network, making their non-O&Oness a pure technicality of about as much practical significance as the status of CJBN-TV (which is considered an O&O, even though it's not technically owned by the network itself, because it's still owned by a different division of the same parent company that owns the network.) Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The situation in the United States where networks are legally restricted from owning many stations and are forced to use franchises is specific to the FCC's rules in the US. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have a Canadian category at some point, it just means that a Canadian-specific main article would be helpful to establish context. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2015 (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:Singles by certification
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 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:Albums by certification
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.
I'm not him, but my thoughts are that while, generally, yes it is, it would be WP:UNDUE to only have that category without all of the others, and the sheer number and (in many cases, arbitrary and/or extremely limited) scope of the collection of them makes it hard to justify keeping the tree. —烏Γ(kaw), 06:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm just going to repeat what I back in my nomination of this category scheme back in March 2012. While an album could well be defined by reaching gold or platinum status, no album is defined by it being certified platinum in Japan, double platinum in the United Kingdom, and triple platinum in Canada, and it certainly does not need to be categorized in every country in which it has received some sort of certification. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for some albums to be categorized in a dozen or more of these categories (with a possibility of as many as 30), such as Gold: Greatest Hits (ABBA album), Believe (Cher album), and 21 (Adele album) (to name just a few), which to me is a case of category clutter and WP:Overcategorization:
Not every verifiable fact in an article requires an associated category
They make it more difficult to find any other particular category, even more so with the length of the names and the number of these categories
Having each of these characteristics mentioned in the lead portion of the article would not be appropriate, although general statements like "top selling" or "record breaking" may be.
This may also fall under overcategorization per WP:OC#AWARD just because of the number of albums in the number of countries that certifications can be received, just like trying to categorize an actor or author or artist for every award s/he may have received.
Not to mention that criteria can change over time, meaning what's gold in 1970 could be different to what qualifies for gold certification in 2000. I have no issue with looking at an article for an album and seeing its sourced list of individual certifications. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me01:49, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gold or platinum certifications can certainly be mentioned in the body of an article — but as noted, it just leads to extreme category explosion as a categorization scheme, given that albums quite commonly earn such certifications in multiple countries. To name just one obvious worldwide smash that jumped out at me to check, Adele's 21 is in 25 certification categories, all of which are sitting ahead of the two most genuinely WP:DEFINING categories of all, Category:2011 albums and Category:Adele (singer) albums, in the category pileup. That's quite simply absurd, I'm sorry to say. Lists would be acceptable (though potentially unmaintainable) — but categories for this is just a recipe for extreme bloat. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 21:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete something between OCAWARD and fan-cruft, it is certainly category clutter and none of these albums is notable for selling so many copies in such-and-such jurisdiction, so it's certainly trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 19 October 2015 (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.
