Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 11

< October 10	October 12 >

October 11

Category:Anti-Russian sentiments in Armenia

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Anti-Russian sentiments in Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is only one page in this category and it doesn't seem like there is a lot of information about the topic to warrant its own category. The Ninja5 Empire (Talk) 07:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The one article is well categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 15 October 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:Television seasons by programming

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:Television seasons by series as a better name, without prejudice to further discussion on naming. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Television seasons by programming to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: There has got to be a better name for this. Maybe Category:Television seasons by series? I'm open to other names. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:03, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Either Category:Television seasons by series or Category:Television seasons by television series or Category:Seasons by television series would be fine, at least align to a certain extent with Category:Television series. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Definite rename, but I'm not sure what the right answer is. We need to work around the differing American vs. British definitions of "series" here — but an individual recurring television show is either a series or a programme, not a programming. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Television seasons by series, matching the parent Category:Television series. That was the first name that its creator J 1982 (talk · contribs) gave it in December 2015, and IMHO the better name. "TV program(me)" may be a series (recurring) or a one-off, but only series have seasons. – Fayenatic London 09:45, 12 October 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.

Television programs adapted into _____

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristics. Trivialist (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, these are part of the hierarchy Category:Works adapted for other media. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Same reason. All categories are a fine and useful overview of the impact these media had on popular culture and thus both socio-culturally and historically important. User:Kjell Knudde, 15:32, 15 October 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Per the reasons given by Fayenatic london. Dimadick (talk) 22:35, 18 October 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:Rape myths of Persephone

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 and merge to Category:Rape of Persephone. – Fayenatic London 23:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Rape myths of Persephone to Category:Mythology of Persephone's abduction

Nominator's rationale: The difference between these categories is not clear. Goustien (talk) 20:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly merge but I wonder whether the target might simply be Category:Persephone's abduction. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but the key article is Rape of Persephone (tiny though it is) - shouldn't the category also be at Category:Rape of Persephone? Grutness...wha? 00:32, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles in this category are specifically about a rape, the articles are mostly about companions and siblings of Persephone. I would consider Persephone to be the main article and if this category renamed it could simply become Category:Persephone. However one may also well argue that the category should be deleted per WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge? Rename? Delete?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:06, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Goustien, Grutness, and Peterkingiron: Correct me if I'm wrong but I think there is consensus that merging the two categories together is the most minimal requirement here. We just came up with diverging suggestions with regards to the question what to do next with the merged category, rename it into something else or delete it per WP:OCASSOC. We may also discuss the further follow up in a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah - definitely merge. Most of the discussion is simply as to the title of the merged category. Grutness...wha? 00:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Newly Named Category If Rape of Persephone is really the main article, both categories should blindly follow that decision in the article space.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:36, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tag Category:Mythology of Persephone's abduction has just been marked for discussion and directed to this conversation so the closing administrator can consider both categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly, merge somehow. We clearly have a consensus on that. It is all about one Greek myth. Personally, I would suggest Abduction of Persephone might be a rename target for the article and Category:Abduction of Persephone for the cat, but almost any of the suggestions made would be satisfactory as a target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Rape of Persephone per the main article, and work out the naming issue on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:46, 22 October 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:Economic, social and political strategies

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. ℯ xplicit 06:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Economic, social and political strategies to Category:Political strategies

Nominator's rationale: rename, shorter names are better, and all articles in the category can be characterized as political. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upmerge. I agree this is a bad category, but I don't think that Political strategy is a notable concept, and I will propose it for deletion. Articles here can just be upmerged; I mean they are just policies, nothing more. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:44, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion could be an option too for the category. Merging would become complicated though, because Category:Policy is a topic category about policy, while policies (as a set) are scattered in the tree of Category:Politics. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 02:04, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 01:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is a small mixed bag of pages with very little in common. – Fayenatic London 23:59, 29 October 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.