Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 26

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 25 March 27 >

March 26

Category:Documentary films about bisexuality

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 subject to recategorising one named article. – Fayenatic London 21:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. By this merge the parent Category:Documentaries about bisexuality becomes empty and can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete another "about" category that begs the questions (1) how much "about" the subject must it be? and (2) what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. As per Marcocapelle's observation above, (1) who knows and (2) none appear to be the answers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Most of the content is for films about bisexual characters, not about bisexuality per se. Place Clichy (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) After the category got populated/polluted, I now concur with deletion, but the article Bi the Way, which originally was the only article in this category, should still be moved to Category:Works about bisexuality and Category:Documentary films about LGBT topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 3 April 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:Bisexual female media

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
WP:SOFTDELETE due to low participation, i.e. with permission to recreate either category if sufficient contents can be added to make it useful for navigation. – Fayenatic London 21:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer between culture and literature, with almost no contents. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 26 March 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:Sitcom show fan user templates

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. – Fayenatic London 09:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, "sitcom" does not require any further clarification or disambiguator like "show",
WP:C2C per Category:Sitcoms. This nomination was opposed at CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
copy of CFDS discussion
  • That wouldn't be a proposal for speedy renaming, would it? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 12 March 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:Unmovable pages

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 09:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See also: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 March 26 § Template:Can't move
Nominator's rationale: this category and its populating template {{Can't move}} are a result of misunderstanding of how Template:Babel works. See Category talk:Unmovable pages for previous discussion. Corresponding TfD. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: You describe a misunderstanding, but you don't explain why the category should be deleted. Why should editors not be told not to move a page if the page is not supposed to be moved? Hyacinth (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hyacinth, at the moment, {{Can't move}} just adds misinformation about Template:Babel to pages. It is not practical to mark every page where moving it might be undesirable. Part of my reply from category talk page:
  • Most of the important pages can't be moved by most users. There is a separate user group
    WP:MfD
    for templates, categories, and everything else correspondingly.
  • Most issues arising from apparent perceived immobility are solved by
    redirects
    , which are created automatically during a page move, unless the move performing user disables this feature — these are noted in page history as "... moved page ... without leaving a redirect".
  • For pages, where a move should be very carefully considered, there is Template:Old moves.
To some extent,
WP:BEANS also applies. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:54, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Thanks. Hyacinth (talk) 10:35, 27 March 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:Akrotirians of British descent

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) DannyS712 (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: 3 people who were either born in or lived on the Sovereign Military Bases of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, and are already in the parent category. A "descent" category for people on a military base seems entirely superfluous. I 'd like to know what people think of the parent category too. It doesnt seem very defining. Rathfelder (talk) 16:48, 26 March 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.

Centuries in SomeNationality television

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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC) @BrownHairedGirl: about the templates.[reply]
Propose renaming 108 categories from "Decades in Foo television" to "Foo television by decade":
106 more "Centuries in SomeNationality television" categories
Nominator's rationale: to align the convention of Category:Television by country by century with the "Foo by year" convention of Category:Television by country by year, as set at WP:CFD/2019 May 4#Categories_by_year. This also matches the wider convention of Category:Years and Category:Centuries for topics which are not "in location" or "in locationtype". This convention was set for year categories at WP:CFD/2019 April 16#Years.
The convention for by-year container categories is "Years in Foo" for places (countries, continents, counties, states, cities etc), but "foo by year" for other topics ... because people don't live in boxing or cricket or arts or medicine or radio or religion. So we have:
The same should apply to centuries.
Note that most of the categories listed here were recently created by me, following an existing convention. They are populated by a series of category header templates, which will need updating if the categories are renamed: {{Nationality television series by century category/core}}, {{Nationality television seasons by century category/core}}, and {{Century in nationality television category/core}}. If the closer pings me, I will be happy to make the necessary changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 26 March 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:Concert tours cancelled due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

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. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Yesterday I proposed that this category be renamed, as these concert tours have not been "cancelled" outright, but have merely had some dates postponed. I then learned that a category for postponed concert tours already exists at a different wording than I had suggested, so I've withdrawn my original submission and am instead proposing the merger of the existing categories. Obviously this can be recreated at a later date if some of these concert tours actually end up never resuming at all — e.g. because the artist dies before resuming the tour becomes an option — but as of today, exactly zero of these concert tours have been permanently cancelled yet. Bearcat (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cancellation or postponement of individual shows is not the same thing as the cancellation or postponement of the entire tour. Regardless of the cancellation or postponement of a few individual shows, that does not make the tour cancelled — to label the tour as cancelled, what would to happen is an announcement that every single date on the entire rest of the tour is completely canned forever, so that the entire tour as a whole will never resume at all. But that hasn't happened to any of these tours at all: all of them are merely on hiatus, but none have been permanently cancelled. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly zero of these have been cancelled. All of them have merely had some dates postponed, which is not the same thing as cancellation. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 5 April 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.

Decades in non-place topics

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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC) @BrownHairedGirl: about the templates.[reply]
Propose renaming 128 categories from "Decades in topic" to "Topic by decade":
110 more nationality television categories
Nominator's rationale: to align the convention of Category:Decades with the "Foo by year" convention of Category:Years and Category:Centuries for topics which are not "in location" or "in locationtype". This convention was set for years at WP:CFD/2019 April 16#Years and WP:CFD/2019 May 4#Categories_by_year
The convention for by-year container categories is "Years in Foo" for places (countries, continents, counties, states, cities etc), but "foo by year" for other topics ... because people don't live in boxing or cricket or arts or medicine or radio or religion. So we have:
This nomination will bring the decades into line with the years and centuries.
I made the list by running this Petscan query (which may time out if run when server load is high, i.e. when North America is awake), and then manually removing the remaining "in location" or "in locationtype" categories. I think it's a fairly complete list, since the Petscan query recursed into 6 levels of subcats of Category:Decades.
Note that most of the categories listed here are the "Decades in SomeNationality television" categories (e.g. Category:Decades in Venezuelan television), most of which were recently created by me, following an existing convention. They are populated by a series of category header templates, all of which will need updating if the categories are renamed: {{Decade in nationality television category/core}}, {{Nationality television series debuts or endings by decade category/core}}, {{Nationality television series by decade category/core}} and {{Nationality television seasons by decade category/core}}. If the closer pings me, I will be happy to make the necessary changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:50, 26 March 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.

Mostly winter sports by year

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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 13:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
14 more "Years in some winter sport" categories
Nominator's rationale: to align with the "Foo by year" convention of Category:Sport by year, and indeed of most of other by-year container categories for non-geographical topics, as set at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 16#Years and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 4#Categories_by_year.
The convention for by-year container categories is "Years in Foo" for places (countries, continents, counties, states, cities etc), but "foo by year" for other topics ... because people don't live in boxing or cricket or arts or medicine or radio or religion, so we have:
See also the current discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Womens_sports_by_year.
I think this is speediable per
WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 26 March 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.

Media by year of disestablishment

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 the first three categories. Rename Category:Film series by year of disestablishment to Category:Film series endings by year, in conformity with Category:Television series endings by year. bibliomaniac15 21:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Nominator's rationale: The entire premise of these recently created categories is flawed. Media franchises are never disestablished. These categories fail
WP:CATDEFINING, that there be a "consistent standard of use". Even when a media franchise claims it is over, they are frequently re-established anyway. In practice, this really means "most recent year a film in this franchise came out," which is not a useful category. (Does anybody REALLY believe that Star Wars anthology films were disestablished in 2018?) But it's even worse: what about spin-offs, like novelizations or comic books or television series? Sequels that are done by a different production team and differ substantially? Staggered releases where the last work might come out one year, but translated / localized versions come out in later years? Public domain works with major acknowledged work by other authors than the creator? Franchises declared in progress and alive, but the last release was more than two decades ago with no updates since? There's no good answer. Impossible to quantify and not useful. SnowFire (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Can you give an example of a film series for which this is a defining characteristic? DexDor (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Silly Symphony which had its last film in 1939, Our Gang which had its last film in 1944, Looney Tunes which had its last film in 1969. Long-defunct series with little to no chance at a revival. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the Film series cat & subcats were kept (which I don't endorse, to be clear, I still think deletion is the way to go), they should be renamed - "disestablished" is the wrong word anyway, when a business is disestablished it's flat gone, this isn't the case here where DVD and streaming sales will continue indefinitely. Maybe something like Category:Film series by year of last theatrical release. That said, many of the problems I mention in my nom statement remain about providing a consistent standard (e.g. a film franchise that continues with direct-to-video / direct-to-streaming films, film franchises with quasi-accepted spin-offs done by a different team like the non-Eon James Bond films), and I don't believe this is a defining attribute anyway. SnowFire (talk) 21:20, 27 March 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:Wikidata status updates

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) 13:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the category was added to user talk pages with mass message delivery by accident. Example: Special:Diff/739200333. —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:42, 26 March 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:Architects from Dorset

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: manual merge back to
user:Oculi. – Fayenatic London 16:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: This arises from a discussion at the Architecture project and should be seen a test case for all the other 36 "architects by county" categories in Category:English architects by county. Examining the contents reveals that few of the architects ever seem to have done much work in Dorset. Most of them, like most of their profession, headed for London or other big cities, & were based there, or went abroad. I've already removed one who only seems to have gone to a boarding school there! The same is true for other county cats I've looked at. We don't do "by profession by county" categories for other (non-sporting) jobs, and it just isn't helpful. A few of these have been around for a while, but most set up recently. I doubt their contents are at all complete. It is especially objectionable that these are diffusing categories. Category:English architects has only 11 direct members, which is crazy. Most are already herded into "by century" categories. There are also 15 "by city" categories in Category:English architects by city, which have a stronger justification imo, though some could go. Most seem actually to have worked in the city. The contents should be added back to Category:English architects, checking that they have "by century" cats, which many don't seem to do. Johnbod (talk) 02:17, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge per nom, as an unrelated intersection between place of birth and occupation in later life at a different place. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - some editors seem obsessed with endlessly diffusing useful categories into useless subcats.
    Oculi (talk) 06:18, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Support - per nom. I don't find these "county" categories remotely helpful as an editor, and I think they are positively unhelpful to readers as they "hide" the article subjects under layers of over-categorisation. KJP1 (talk) 13:13, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking about it, I would not object to a repurposing to a non-diffusing Category:Architects of Dorset for those whose careers were mostly local. For this example category, currently with 8 members, this would leave only Bastard brothers and Benjamin Bastard - these among the most notable truly county-based of English architects. A parent of Category:English regional architects could hold them. But many of these might just be too small.Johnbod (talk) 14:58, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Architecture is not an occupation that's strongly defined by where the person happens to have come from — an architect might be defined to an extent by particular locations where their actual work can be found, but is not strongly defined by merely having lived somewhere, and these categories are grouping the architects on the latter basis rather than the former. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To say a person is from somewhere is entirely ambiguous. They may be born, grow up, or become notable, in a place. Its not true that all these architects are categorised by place of birth. Many biographies are categorised in several locations. It may well be that few architects are properly located in Dorset. It's a small county. But plenty are properly located in Yorkshire, Manchester, and Glasgow. Architects in other countries are categorised by location. Why should English architects be treated differently? The discussion at the architect project assumed that the subjects are notable only because they are architects. In fact, as with most occupational categories, quite a lot are notable for other things, often linked to their location. We have long had categories of architects by city. There doesnt seem to be any objection to them. This appears to be an attack on the fundamental hierarchical nature of our category system. All these articles are still included in Category:English architects NB If this is held out to be a test case can we have all the categories for which this is said to be a test nominated please? Rathfelder (talk) 17:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, you'll get them in the big nom when this succeeds. Your other points, such as they are, have been addressed in the original linked discussion (except the odd new one in the middle, which just isn't relevant). If appropriate, the appropriate category would be Category:People from Dorset. Noone is opposing that. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I see nothing wrong with categorizing architects by their place or origin or education. Categorization by where they worked seems trivial and non-definding. We do not need more London-based categories for everyone who happened to pass through the city. Dimadick (talk) 20:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary I think that we should categorize people by what makes them notable, so in this case where they have been active as an architect. If nearly all English architects are based in London however, then categorization by location does not make sense at all. Categorization by century still makes sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Architects, like everyone else, exist in time and space. The question of where we say a particular architect is from is a reasonable question, but I dont see why we should deny architects a location. Location is probably more significant for architects than it is for comedians, tennis people, writers or artists, but we categorise them by location. Bigwig7 (talk) 22:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Category:English comedians by county, Category:English writers by county, Category:English artists by county??? As the nom says, sports people may be different, as county teams are the way most sports are organized at a junior level, and cricket at a professional level. But even so, Category:English tennis players is not broken down by county, and cricket players are only part of Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is
Oculi (talk) 06:43, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
Ah, thanks! I had looked for such a category, but hadn't turned over that particular stone. So I should adjust my comment just above to say we do have Category:English comedians by locality and Category:English writers by locality (but not the artists). These too look pretty incomplete, & vulnerable on the same grounds. It is sensible to combine by city & by county cats, I suppose. Johnbod (talk) 14:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see the county they're from originally as being defining for architects. However, it would be a good idea to double check that members aren't already in Category:English architects or time-based subcats of it. buidhe 01:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge per nom,
    WP:DNWAUC etc. DexDor (talk) 07:08, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Category:English artists is sub-categorised into various localities. NB where people are "from" may not be their place of birth. We could categorise people by where they practice. Category:Cricketers from Yorkshire is subdivided into 25 localities. It's hard to see why architects should not be said to be from a place when many other professionals are. Rathfelder (talk) 17:49, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So they are - some set up by you last month! But they are not collected into a
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very strong argument, especially when I'd imagine those categories would also be pretty vulnerable here. Johnbod (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
It is a common and sensible way to test sentiment on big groups. Maybe someone else will want to nominate the "by city" cats, or propose an alternative "by locality" set-up. This nomination is about the "by county" ones, to be followed, if successful, by a group nom for the rest where supporters of Lancashire etc can make a case (as I told you above). You have from the start claimed to be following WP categorization orthodoxy, & I have been pointing out that your understanding of what we try to do here, and how we do it, is less than perfect. Johnbod (talk) 19:12, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "We could categorise people by where they practice." Yes, I would love to see that all "people from" would be converted to categories by location of their reason of notability. But that is not the case now, and the nominated category mainly contains architects born in Dorset. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Architects from Wyoming seems to be full of people who practised in Wyoming, not people born there. Rathfelder (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not appear to be a proposal for deletion, but for merger. And this is not the way we test proposals that affect large numbers of categories. If this is an issue of principle then what, exactly is the principle being proposed? If the objection is that some people are put into the Dorset category who would be more appropriately categorised as from somewhere else then the solution is to reclassify those articles, not to abolish the category. It is accepted that it is appropriate for some of them. If you want English architects to be a non-diffusing category, then why not propose that? And why are we are only talking about English architects? Few of these people were active before 1707, so they are all legally British, not English. Rathfelder (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NB if the fundamental issue is that professionals should be categorised in relation to where they practised rather than where they grew up then I would entirely support proposals along those lines. Rathfelder (talk) 13:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than filling up the discussion with further manufactured arguments in favour of your position, it might be more profitable to read, and reflect on, other editors’ views. KJP1 (talk) 17:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lets see a conherent proposal then. What is proposed here is duplicitous. The proposal is for merger, not deletion. Merger with what? And if this is a precedent, to what does it apply?Rathfelder (talk) 18:01, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you read the nomination statement? DexDor (talk) 19:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Propose deleting Category:Architects from Dorset" - seems clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 19:07, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Born in vs worked in is a red herring. I think everybody in this category was born in Dorset, but the trouble is that the category shows that with the exception of the two Bastard articles, there was hardly any just no work done in Dorset, according to the articles, so "which is likely to be near their important buildings" is just wrong. In fact I've just read the 6 articles again, & I think I'm right in saying that while a large number of counties, and several other countries, are mentioned, no buildings actually in Dorset are mentioned at all. That's the point, & why it is not defining. Johnbod (talk) 01:38, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop trying to derail this with
OSE arguments. We can look at Cities once a decision has been reached on Counties. KJP1 (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply
]
So can we have a nomination of all the affected county categories please? And an explanation of why county categories should be treated differently from city categories? Rathfelder (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As you've been told several times, the idea of a test nom is to judge sentiment before doing a big nom for all the rest. But if you're really keen, you can do one for the rest now, I suppose, and add the cities if you want. Johnbod (talk) 20:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to understand what you are trying to achieve, and what the scope of this test is. If you just want a list of all the English architects you could make that a non-diffusing category. But is your plan just about England? What about the rest of the world? If you want architects linked to the places where they were active and where their buildings are, that is a bigger project and one which I would support, but it doesnt just affect architects. We could have categories such as "Dorset architects". But that would bring its own problems. These days architects may have projects in many places. Rathfelder (talk) 10:29, 2 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_26&oldid=952557838"