Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 18



Category:Pages created by UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deletion of Category:Pages created by UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ. We don't do this sort of thing, as far as I know. Drmies (talk) 21:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Aristophanes 68   (talk)  22:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete I suggest create a list on zir userpage instead.  Lady  of  Shalott  02:06, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- There is a long precedent on this, though the question does not often arise. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Vomment: Category to make a covnirnce to seatch bu a user.UY4Xe8VM5VYxaQQ (talk) 19:03, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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 series by New Line 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: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by New Line Television to Category:Television series by Warner Bros. Television
 * Nominator's rationale: The category splits must stop, NLT is defunct, so Warner Bros. Television owns it, also those production companys are defunct, so i want them back in the category of its owner RIGHT NOW!. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 13:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * oppose Corporate mergers don't erase the past. NLT produced these shows not WB. Mangoe (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Television series are categorized by the company that produced them at the time, not by what other company might have acquired the first one 20 or 30 or 40 years after the series ended production. And you don't get to unilaterally dictate that Wikipedia content must be organized the way you want it to, nor do you get to dictate the opinions that other Wikipedians are allowed to express the way you have been. Oppose. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for all the reasons stated in the opposing votes above, and on every other television production company category that you have proposed for merging. Trivialist (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Warner may own this franchise but it was not the author of the series. The first of this series of noms went through with little opposition, because we had not thought through the implications properly.  If anything, the early ones should be reversed or go to DRV.  I would see no objection to having Warner as a parent, as current owners, but who knows what franchises they may decide to spin off one day. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: No oppose comments.
 * For approximately the seventeenth time now, you do not get to decide what opinions people are allowed to have and/or express in this discussion. You can propose a matter for discussion, but you do not get to unilaterally dictate the final outcome. You do not get to decree whether people are allowed to post "oppose" comments or not, and you do not get to demand that the closing administrator close the discussion as a merge despite a clear consensus in the opposite direction, as you did on Marcocapelle's talk page. Consensus takes precedence over your own personal opinions. Bearcat (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Educational institutions

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Educational institutions to Category:Educational organizations and the various geographical sub-categories.  I presume what is meant by Institutions is schools, colleges etc.  Organisations includes a slightly wider range, but still the vast majority of articles in the Institution category are about the Educational institutions.  But included in the Pages in category "Educational institutions" are, for example the Bangladesh Institute of Bank Management, the Center for Jewish-Christian Understanding and Cooperation and the Colombo Institute of Research & Psychology.  I think this demonstrates that users have difficulty in differentiating the two categories.  Rathfelder (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Also, please note that if nominating a category tree, you have to tag and list every single subcategory, or ask for help. --PanchoS (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose (reluctantly). The nominated category has the description "An educational institution is a place where people of different ages receive an education, including preschools, elementary schools, high schools and universities." While Category:Educational organizations includes organizations involved in the field of education that are not themselves schools. (Category:Schools, it would seem, stop short of including universities, do I have that right?) The nominator is quite right in saying clean up is required, but I don't believe a straight upmerge is gonna work. I think what's required is some form of category description on the organization's cat page, and pruning in the institutions page based on a good description there already...? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose (vigorously) – Category:Educational organizations has numerous subcats which are clearly not 'Educational institutions' so the merge will not begin to work. Oculi (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: agreeing with those above: these are very different subjects and should be kept apart. Aristophanes 68   (talk)  01:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose; these are two very different types of things. If they're getting used incorrectly, then the appropriate solution is to clean them up by recategorizing anything that's in the wrong place, not to entirely disappear the distinction from existing anywhere in the category system. Bearcat (talk) 08:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- One has to go some distance down the tree to see what the organisations is about. What I found there was professional organisations coordinating education in particular fields.  That is quite different from the schools, etc that deliver education.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:26, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per everything above, but please consider an alt merge with per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Museums and kindergartens would have to be moved up to  and  might need some additional considerations, but otherwise almost all educational institutions are academic, as the blatantly overlapping main articles Academic institution and Educational institution show. Also, the distance in scope between  and  would be sufficienty large. On the other hand, losing museums, kindergartens, and possibly religious institutions might be seen as a drawback. Slightly improving consistency and rigidity of these category branches, and improving the main articles might suffice.
 * I think that there are difficulties when we go down the tree. There are only enough articles to justify separate categories in a very small number of countries.  I am quite happy to clean up the institutions category, as I have the organisations category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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 series by Desilu Productions

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by Desilu Productions to Category:Television series by CBS Television Studios
 * Nominator's rationale: No need for a category that has Desilu shows, it became Paramount Television in 1968, and is now CBS Television Studios. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 12:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose It would be an anachronism to have some of these shows as CBS Television Studios series because they were totally made under the Desilu Productions label....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * oppose Corporate mergers don't erase the past. Desilu produced these shows, not CBS. Mangoe (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Television series are categorized by the company that produced them at the time, not by what other company might have acquired the first one 20 or 30 or 40 years after the series ended production. And you don't get to unilaterally dictate that Wikipedia content must be organized the way you want it to, nor do you get to dictate the opinions that other Wikipedians are allowed to express the way you have been. Oppose. Bearcat (talk) 17:37, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, for all the reasons stated in the opposing votes above, and on every other television production company category that you have proposed for merging. Trivialist (talk) 20:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- as with a lot of recent cases. CBS did not make these series: it bought their author, who should retain the original credit.  Having CBS as a parent as current owner might be appropriate.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: No oppose comments, Desilu had changed its name to Paramount Television in 1968, CBS Paramount in 2006, and CBS Television Studios jn 2009, Trivialists category spilt have to stop, Trivialist must be kicked off this site.
 * Once more, with feeling: you do not get to decide who's allowed to participate in this discussion or what they're allowed to say. The succession of name and ownership changes is not relevant to this category tree; the salient characteristic, when it comes to "television series by production company", is the name that the company was operating under at the time a show was in production. A television series that ended production in 1957 does not belong in a category for a company that didn't exist until 2009 — it belongs in a category for the company that existed in 1957, and was actually responsible for its production in 1957. You've been told this repeatedly, yet you refuse to listen — so the only person in any danger of getting "kicked off this site" is you. If I ever see another "people are not allowed to oppose this" comment from you, you're getting a 24-hour editblock for being disruptive and uncollaborative. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose "No oppose comments"?!?! What is different about this nomination than all the other recent ones that have been declined? Thse series were by Desilu Productions regardless of the subsequent corporate takeovers. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 47 has a troubling history of trying to sledgehammer the discussions into going their way. In addition to declaring on several occasions now that other editors weren't allowed to post "oppose" comments, they've also tried to erase or strike out any opposing comments — and on at least one occasion that I know of, also approached the closing administrator after the fact to demand that the admin overrule the oppose votes and close the discussion as a merge despite the consensus having been clearly the other way. 47 is definitely cruising for an editblock — the fact that they're an anonymous IP rather than a logged-in editor, and thus can't be permanently blocked, is about the only reason I haven't already blocked them. Bearcat (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.