THC Science

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6

Category:Defunct mass media

Rename Category:Defunct mass media of Australia to Category:Defunct mass media in Australia per Category:Mass media in Australia

Rationale This is to bring Category:Defunct mass media by country into line with Category:Mass media by country, which was renamed to use 'in' at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_10#Media_by_country. Oculi (talk) 22:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The move target for all of these (in the CfD template in the categories themselves) is "Category:Change 'of' to 'in'". Will fix! dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 07:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed all of them!

dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 07:53, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Augustine scholars

Propose renaming Category:Augustine scholars to Category:Augustinian scholars

Nominator's rationale: As per WP:RS the common adjectival form of the discipline, and to match other future patristic scholar categories. Elizium23 (talk) 21:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Proposed rename is ambiguous with scholars who are writing from an Augustinian perspective (which does not apply to all those in this category) or scholars who are Augustinians. The current name is unambiguous and should be kept. b uidhe 21:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Buidhe. This would create ambiguity: Augustinian is a disambiguation page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Augustinian refers to a religious order. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Augustine studies

Propose renaming Category:Augustine studies to Category:Augustinian studies

Nominator's rationale: Per widespread usage in WP:RS as both a proper noun and a common term referring to the study of St. Augustine, in the common adjectival form. Elizium23 (talk) 20:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: consistency with parent (Category:Christianity studies) and child (Category:Augustine scholars) categories. Both forms are widely used in sources, and again you have the problem of ambiguity as to writing from an Augustinian viewpoint versus writing about Augustinianism. Current name is unambiguous. b uidhe 21:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Buidhe. This would create ambiguity: Augustinian is a disambiguation page.
This category is about studies of Saint Augustine of Hippo and Augustinians. The proposed rename would create ambiguity with studies by Augustinian, i.e. members of religious orders following the Rule of St Augustine.
Also, it is very unhelpful that the nominator @Elizium23 failed to even mention that this proposal was first made by them as a speedy nomination at WP:CFDS, where it was opposed. The convention is that the opposed speedy nomination should not just be noted, but that whoever brings it here for a full discussion posts with this nomination a copy of the comments at CFDS. The lack of transparency in this case undermines consensus-formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a copy of the CFDS exchange which Elizium23 should have included in the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of comments at WP:CFDS

Category:Augustine studies to Category:Augustinian studies – C2B: Adjectival form per articles and widespread usage Elizium23 (talk) 20:53, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose speedy I have seen no indication that "Augustinian studies" is part of an established category tree or otherwise satisfies C2B. Its immediate parent is "Christianity studies", which uses the noun form. b uidhe 21:23, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Many WP:RS refer to "Augustinian studies" in both proper noun form and generic lowercase form, in describing a periodical and programs of study at university. Where are your WP:RS describing "Augustine studies"? Elizium23 (talk) 01:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is most probably a valid rename, but it does not seem to satisfy a speedy criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Augustinian refers to a religious order. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Valleys of Newton County, Missouri

Propose merging Category:Valleys of Newton County, Missouri to Category:Landforms of Newton County, Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent category per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one page in this category, and unlikely to increase in number of pages. Hog Farm (talk) 19:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, as part of an established series under Category:Valleys of Missouri by county. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep for the exact and excelllent reason stated by BHG above Hmains (talk) 00:24, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diptera pages with biological content

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: speedy delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Diptera pages with biological content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Nebulous category that has no reason to exist Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This category guides those interested in the Biology of Diptera to access pages with substantive biological content.It serves as an index.Please do not delete it. Notafly (talk) PS I am selecting pages which illustrate the variety of life strategies of Diptera.Content will likely not exceed 100- most Diptera stubs relate to taxonomy alone.Also, in part, it was to draw attention to the very useful work of the Diptera group.
- Hi Notafly, I'm sorry for disrupting your editing. I respect your work in creating Diptera articles. What is your definition of an article having "biological content"? It seems that the definition of this category is all Diptera articles that are in some way substantial i.e. C class or above, as any article of that quality must in some way discuss "biological content" in order to be that substantial. Much of the same classification without the category could be done by changing articles to c class for wikiproject diptera on their talk pages, which would show up here. There's not really any need for a category that duplicates the Wikiproject Diptera quality scale. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see what you mean and you are right - C class articles serve the same end. I will need a little time to change the pages.Will you leave matters as they stand until I have completed that please. Kind regards to you to. Notafly (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Have I done the link to C class from Biology of Diptera (under See also) correctly?
    - I have added B class articles to the section as there are 46 of them, I didn't add GA or featured articles as there is only a few of them, and the reader can easily navigate to them from the linked categories. While some of the articles in the categories are not directly about Dipterans like genes or films, I think they are enough of a minority that they don't really matter. Kind regards Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nice work.Thankyou.Notafly (talk) 18:18, 6 May 2020
        No content now. Please delete category. Keep up the good work.Best regards Notafly (talk) 20:41, 6 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.

2019–20 coronavirus pandemic music categories

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: The page for the main article 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic was recently moved to COVID-19 pandemic, its correct virological name per the recent discussion at the relevant article talk page Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Requested_move_26_April_2020 → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note This was six separate nominations which shared a word-for-word identical rationale, so I have merged them. I have updated the tags on each of the six categories, so that they link to this new heading. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nominator and per Talk:COVID-19_pandemic#Requested_move_26_April_2020. (As a sidenote, I think that the pile-on at the RM was mistaken, and that it chose a scientifically-correct name instead of an unambiguous WP:COMMONNAME ... but I accept the outcome and don't seek to re-open it, so this rename is a natural follow-on) .--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I hope this will be the last case where we need to change a category to match the WHO-adopted name. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Concerts about the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Propose deleting Category:Concerts about the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category doesn't make logical sense. Benefit concerts are not concerts about the pandemic → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 15:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:2020 concerts. I support the nominator's rationale that benefit concerts are not concerts about the pandemic .... but outright deletion would remove the contents from Category:2020 concerts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge, also to Category:Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on music. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bill Haslam

Propose deleting Category:Bill Haslam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category contains the article about the topic of the category and 4 elections in which he participated. User:Namiba 13:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:PERFCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1st-century European people by nationality

Propose deleting Category:1st-century European people by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Conflating ethnicity with nationality. Since Ireland (the only subcat here) in the 1st century was divided into many independent kingdoms, no 1st century individual can be said to have the Irish nationality. It simply did not exist. I’d be willing to concede they are probably ethnically Irish, but the concept of a nationality is absurd in this context. Kleuske (talk) 12:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:1st-century European people. That category has too few subcategories to require this type of diffusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge I would disagree that Ireland in the 1st-century was not a nation; that there were many tribes does not disallow their common kinship or sense of nationhood. While the foregoing tends to go in the opposite direction to my vote, the Irish example is probably one of the few exceptions in Europe. As a rule, it's not a good idea to designate nationality in Europe at such a remote period so support Marco's suggestion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merge to Category:1st-century European people. If we needed this it should be "by ethnicity", but nationality was a concept that had yet to come. There was citizenship, normally relating to a city not a nation. Roman citizenship might be an exception, but in fact refers to the city of Rome. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spanish-language YouTubers

Propose renaming Category:Spanish-language YouTubers to Category:Spanish-language YouTube channels

Nominator's rationale: Per the two others in Category:YouTube channels by language, also increasing the scope a bit. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is redundant to classify YouTubers as Spanish speaking when they live in an overwhelmingly Spanish-speaking country anyway. If kept, it should become the parent category of many categories by nationality, e.g. Category:Argentine YouTubers. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Holy Land archaeologists

Propose deleting Category:Holy Land archaeologists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT, this is a redundant intersection of Category:Biblical archaeologists and Category:Archaeologists of the Near East. – Joe (talk) 11:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, but move articles of this category to Category:Biblical archaeologists or Category:Archaeologists of the Near East insofar applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
manually empty to the other categories, then delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Television program(me)s

Propose renaming:

List of 471 categories to be renamed "television program(me)s" to "television shows"

Nominator's rationale: For clarity and consistency, per MOS:COMMONALITY, as discussed at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Category:Television_programs, where the parent Category:Television programs was renamed to Category:Television shows.

This matches the head article television show, to which television program and television programme both redirect.

None of these category titles are proper names. They are all descriptive titles devised by Wikipedia editors per WP:NDESC, so they should conform to general Wikipedia policies and practices on category titles.

There is little or no difference in scope between the terms "television show" and "television program(me)". The distinction is solely in usage: "show" originated in the United States, and "programme" was the more common usage in British English, but "televison show" is now widely used in British English. See e.g. the English newspapers The Guardian/The Observer (The Observer is published on Sunday as a sister-paper to the monday-Saturday Guardian). The papers' joint style guide at https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-t lists "television shows" but not "television programs" or "television programmes" and a search today shows that actual usage on the paper's website is evenly split between "show" and "programme":

Standardising on "shows" also resolves the spelling variation between the British "programmes" and the American "programs". Per MOS:COMMONALITY,

using vocabulary common to all varieties of English is preferable

... and in this case, the term "television shows" is the only one which is common to all varieties of English.

In the March 31 discussion, one editor asserted that "television show" is too informal a term for an encyclopaedia. Despite several requests, no evidence was offered for that assertion ... and the claim is readily disproven by checking usage in peer-reviewed academic journals, which are the gold standard reliable source: see WP:SCHOLARSHIP.

A search today of JSTOR gives:
- 11,566 hits for "television show"
- 14,923 hits for (("television programme") OR ("television program")).
A search of Google scholar gives

If "show" is sufficiently formal for the most reliable sources then it is sufficiently formal for the encyclopedia.

In the March 31 CFD, some editors made repeated references to MOS:TV and WP:NCTV. However:

WP:NCTV does not mention categories
MOS:TV mentions categories only at MOS:TVCATS, which does not mention the shows/programs/programmes issue.

So we are left with a distinction-without-a difference which breaches MOS:COMMONALITY and hinders navigation ... and per WP:CAT, navigation is the core purpose of categories.

The participants in the March 31 CFD who claimed that there is an existing consensus to use "programs"/"programmes" in category titles were unable to identify a single piece of guidance in support of their claim, or a single discussion which had established even a WP:LOCALCONSENUS for that view, or a single piece of evidence in reliable sources to support their view that "show" is unacceptably informal. I hope that this discussion will not be disrupted by another dose of such unevidenced assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the participants in the March 31 CFD: @Erpert, Grutness, Marcocapelle, AussieLegend, Oculi, Johnbod, Gonnym, and MapReader, and the closer Fayenatic london. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This change would throw the baby out with the bathwater. I'm responding to this discussion because changing Category:Lesbian-related television programs to "Lesbian-related television shows" fails to take into consideration that not all television programs are "shows". The term "program" is an umbrella term for a television production, be it a TV series or a made-for-television film -- and a telemovie is not a "show". Heck, even streaming services (like Netflix) make a point of distinguishing between a TV series and a TV film in their catalog. The attempts to Americanize Wikipedia needs to stop. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pyxis Solitary. In the nomination, I have included evidence that "television show" is acceptable usage in the UK. It's a pity you missed that.
  It's also a pity that you seem not to have read the comment in the nomination's last para asking editors to avoid unevidenced assertions ... and your ABF claim that this an attempt to Americanize Wikipedia is wholly unevidenced.
  I also note that no evidence is provided for your assertion that not all television programs are 'shows'. So your oppose is 100% WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And you seem to have been butt hurt by one sentence: the Americanize. You can attempt to dismiss my response by accusing me that I simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT -- but I think the proposal is wrong.
"no evidence is provided for your assertion that not all television programs are 'shows'". Listen, Perry Mason, this isn't a trial and I don't have to provide any evidence for my response. I've given my reason and I remain opposed. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 11:58, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, straight to the personal abuse,~~, and making up a fake quote~~. And clearly ignoring WP:NOTAVOTE. The closer will know how to weigh that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quote you say is "fake" is copied from your response to my opposition. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was wrong about the quote and have struck that comment. But my point stands: you have made an assertion about the meaning of words, but have offered no evidence. Per WP:V, you need some evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Per WP:V, you need some evidence." You are mistaken. Wikipedia has no policy or guideline that requires editors in discussions to also provide evidence that backs their response, whether the reply opposes or supports the issue. WP:V is about articles -- not discussions: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable." Wherein "Wikipedia mainspace" is defined as: "The main namespace, article namespace, or mainspace is the namespace of Wikipedia that contains the encyclopedia proper—that is, where "live" Wikipedia articles reside". If someone wants to include "evidence" for their opinion: hooray for them. It still doesn't change that they didn't have to.
As for "The closer will know how to weigh that." ... any closer that makes decisions based on your premise needs to re-read WP:CLOSE. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If they do re-read WP:CLOSE, they will find WP:Discardable, which requires the closer to weigh after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only. Unevidenced assertions about the meaning of words or the pattern of usage are just personal opinion, and the principle of verifiability is not excluded here: these categories appear on article pages, and WP:CATVER applies.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Pyxis Solitary wants specific evidence of the lack of distinction between "television show" and "television program(me)". So here is a search of Google News (chosen per WP:Search engine test because it concentrates reliable sources): plenty of examples of the two terms being used interchangeably. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, nope. I did not request "specific evidence" about anything. What I said is "this isn't a trial and I don't have to provide any evidence for my response". Stop making things up (it's not as if everyone isn't able to read what I wrote). You've got a serious problem. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 00:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary: that is your third item of personal abuse in his discussion. Please strike it.

I was responding to your comment that fails to take into consideration that not all television programs are "shows". I took that as a request for evidence, and provided it.

Your contributions to the discussions would be more helpful to consensus-formation if you dropped the insults, and refrained from asserting as fact points for which you have no evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:15, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Pyxis Solitary wants specific evidence of the lack of distinction between "television show" and "television program(me)"." This is what you stated for others to assume about my initial (11:32, 6 May 2020) comment. Let me explain something about myself: I don't reinterpret someone's comments, I don't make false claims about someone's comment, and I don't tolerate it from anyone. You dealt it, so bite the bullet ... and move on. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 06:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed in good faith that you rejected my point because of lack of evidence. You have now made it very clear that my good faith was misplaced, and that you consider evidence to be an irrelevant distraction from your right to make ex-cathedra pronouncements with no obligation to support or justify them. I am sorry for mistaking you for someone who open to reasoned discussion, and I apologise for any offence caused by that mistake. In hindsight, with the benefit of what you have later clarified about your stance, I should have written something like "Pyxis Solitary doesn't give a damn about evidence, and prefers personal insults; but for those who want more a more solid basis of fact than the assertions of an anonymous en.wp editor, here's some evidence". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per consensus at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 31#Category:Television_programs. Surprised to hear that 'show' is American. Oculi (talk) 12:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging: The categories have all been tagged, in these edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was pinged so I'll respond. Oppose all moves. Even in BHG analysis it is clear that the clear majority use "television program". I agree with her that categories should use a consistent style and as I don't believe national ties should hinder navigation in categories (and when needed, category redirects can be made), that should be the one used, not "show" which is almost non-existent in the article space and is counter to how the running text of the en.wiki is. I'm probably not going to respond to this again (seeing as how I've asked before of BHG to bring this to a discussion which she clearly ignored), so unless you really want me to respond, please don't ping me (including you BHG). --Gonnym (talk) 13:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Gonnym says I've asked before of BHG to bring this to a discussion which she clearly ignored). Here have that discussion, to which I created 472 notifications (one at WT:TV, and one at each of the 471 categories). So the assertion that I clearly ignored the request is demonstrably false.
  It's notable that yet again Gonnym asserts a claim of national ties with n evidence to support that, while I have presented evidence that the two are interchangeable in British English. And finally, Gonnym completely ignores MOS:COMMONALITY.
  So the summary of Gonnym's !vote is that it is entirely counter-factual and contra-policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS Gonnym asserts that clear that the clear majority use "television program". This is false: the evidence actually shows that there is roughly equal usage for three terms "television shows", "television programs" and "television programmes".
    Only one of those three roughly equal terms avoids ENGVAR issues, so MOS:COMMONALITY requires us to use that common term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose – "television show" is vernacular; the correct term is "television program(me)". The problem is that the television program article was moved to "television show" in late 2017 after a poorly attended WP:RM – that article should be moved back to where it belongs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I understand that many people call them "shows", but, as an encyclopedia, shouldn't we be using more proper language and wording? Shouldn't these actually be "series"? Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 13:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Who decides what is "proper" language? It is not for Wikipedia to tell people how to use words. If "show" is more commonly used than "program(me)" then that is what we should use.Rathfelder (talk) 21:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Morriswa, "TV series" is unfortunately ambiguous in British English and more often refers to the 'season' than it does the set of episodes constituting the show/program(me)/whatnot, AIUI. --Izno (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's more than simply that – "TV series" is also a "subset" of "TV program", as "series" implies continuing elements such as an ongoing story, while "TV program" is broader and includes other types of TV programming such as news programming, game shows and talk shows. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that as with the opposes in the previous CFD, @Morriswa:

offers zero evidence in support of their assertion that "program(me)" is more proper language and wording
ignores the evidence which I provided in the nomination that "shows" is acceptable language in the most reliable sources
ignores MOS:COMMONALITY

That's just more WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: "Show" really can't (or woudln't in the UK) be used about many types of TV programme, such as current affairs, documentaries, etc. It's too American, as is "program" (which in English actually refers to a computer program). Deb (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would add that the only reason "show" appears to be the most common term is that it's the term used in North America. That doesn't make it better, and doesn't justify the proposed move. Deb (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pick a word. I honestly don't care what the word is but it is damaging to navigation to need to deal with two separate category trees. The opposition is unconvincing that this particular word is a bad word. --Izno (talk) 15:42, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We've explained why "TV show" is vernacular (e.g. used by the hoi polloi) – it's not a proper "industry" term. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, IJBall, you have not explained why 'TV show' is vernacular (e.g. used by the hoi polloi). You and others have made a series of wholly un-evidenced assertions, and have ignored the evidence provided in the nomination that "shows" is widely in scholarly sources, not just by those who condescendingly call hoi-polloi — which is a term whose history is as an expression of class snobbery (see lots of uses, and even https://thesnobmag.com whose slogan is Luxury for the classes. Hoi polloi need not apply. If you believe that such class snobbery is any part of of Wikipedia policy on page titles, please identify that policy.

OTOH, policy at WP:COMMONNAME says to use the name most commonly used in reliable sources ... and MOS:COMMONALITY says Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles.. In this case, the universally accepted term is "television show". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Look, you can ignore what WP:TV regulars (and your own stats) are telling you, but you are unlikely to get very far. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, @IJBall, policy requires that the closer discounts !votes which are not founded in policy or evidence. Your belief that a pile-on of WP:IDONTLIKEITs will prevail is a denial of WP:NOTAVOTE ... and it's sad to see that those who you call WP:TV regulars have shown no regard here for evidence or policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misrepresenting what's happening isn't helping either – the oppose votes all basically follow on Gonnym's argument – that your own stats support the idea that "TV program/programme" is the most common (and best, most all-encompassing) term. And I find the anti-WP:ENGVAR arguments against the current system unconvincing. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I make no misrepresentation, IJBall. On the contrary, by ignoring the spelling variation you are misrepresenting the data: what you call "TV program/programme" is actually two terms "TV program" and "TV programme", so no term has majority usage. Per MOS:COMMONALITY, we are obliged to avoid the ENGVAR split, and use the commonly acceptable term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fundamentally, if show is what we need to avoid really dumb arguments over "program(me)" because dumb old ENGVAR gets in the way, then we should go with show (that's what COMMONALITY means). It would be much more productive if you (and everyone else opposing) bikeshedded or suggested some words we could use to get rid of this idiotic time sink that damages navigation. Heck, I'll throw in and say I'll even take one of the words that half of the populace is bound to hate and suggest picking one of program or programme if that makes you happy. What's not okay is to sit there and bold-oppose Just Because "Show Isn't Good Enough". --Izno (talk) 22:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: Here because the categories for "LGBT-related_television_programs" is one of those encompassed by the broad change. Programs is much more broad than "shows," as not every series is always considered a "show," especially not those that air in non-English speaking countries. Additionally, as @IJBall and @Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) said, television program(me) is the correct term, while show is more venacular. This change should be opposed without question.--Historyday01 (talk) 16:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that like the two editors who @Historyday01 cited approvingly, Historyday01 offers not a single shred of evidence for their assertions ... and also makes no reply to the evidence in support of "shows" which was presented in the nomination. So far, the !votes to oppose are 100% WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're clearly not helping your own cause – throwing insults at the people who disagree with you is simply going to cause the opposition to dig in. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:51, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Given their previous comments, it is sadly unsurprising that IJBALL chooses to dismiss calls for a policy-focus and for evidence as throwing insults. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standardise somehow per User:Izno. All should be at either "shows", "programs" or "programmes". Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standardise, agree with Marcocapelle. Since 'show' doesn't have two different spellings, it might be the way to go. El Millo (talk) 16:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Standardize per Izno, but...include "series" as one of the options. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 17:46, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "Series" would clearly be wrong – TV news programs, game shows, talk shows, TV movies – none of those are TV "series". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - We already have Category:Television series, not affected by this nom. Oculi (talk) 18:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Marcocapelle and @Erpert make a good point about standarizing the names, but I do have to agree with @IJBall that series would be wrong as it cannot apply to TV news programs, game shows, talk shows, or TV movies. While taking into account what Oculi is saying, lets take Astra Lost in Space, Ice (anime), Interspecies Reviewers, Mnemosyne (anime), Macross Frontier, Cybersix, Sym-Bionic Titan, Macross Zero, Kiznaiver, as examples, as all of these animations only have one season. They would be programs but not series going by the MacMillian Dictionary, which defines as "a set of television or radio programmes that are all about a particular subject, person, or group of people." So, using series wouldn't make sense. Merriam-Webster defines a show as "a radio or television program" and a programme/program as "a performance or series of performances, often presented at a scheduled time, esp on radio or television." As such, I have to disagree with the assertions by the op, @BrownHairedGirl. It seems clear to me that program/programme (depending on how you spell it) is broader than show. At times, a show is underneath a program. For instance, Toonami is a programming block on Cartoon Network which includes many shows. At other times, the term program/programme is used instead of show, I still feel as television program/programme is the more proper term than "show." The OP can say this is done for "clarity and consistency," but I would actually say that this will not so. For the OP to cite the "television program" redirect to television show as evidence of their claim is spurious because it is only one page and should NOT be applied as a broader policy to all of the categories they propose changing. I also disagree there is little difference between the the terms "television show" and "television program(me)" as I previously pointed out. Searches on https://www.theguardian.com/us bring up 117,000 results for the words "TV programme" and 203,000 results for the words "tv programme". If focusing on the words in quotes, you get 2,600 results for "television programme," 5,870 results for "tv programme." The op can cite the style guide as listing television shows, but the same page DOES list "TV programmes" under titles, which is almost convient they skipped over that. The op also didn't say anything about this entry for the word "program" in the same style guide:

in Australia and the US, and for computer programs everywhere; otherwise programme in the UK: “I saw a fascinating TV programme about computer programs”

The OP can cite JSTOR searches, Google Scholar, or anywhwere else, but their search is inherently flawed as none of their searches ever included the words "tv program", "tv program" or "tv show." Whether you see the word "TV show" as veracular or not, the fact is that TV shows and TV programs are not always the same, as I noted previously. That's all I have to say at this time, ans I hope that others continue this discussion in earnest. As such, I still strongly oppose the change purposed by the OP and encourage others to follow suit.Historyday01 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, several points here, which I will take one at a time:

Merriam-Webster defines a show as "a radio or television program" ... It seems clear to me that program/programme (depending on how you spell it) is broader than show. That's a non-sequitur: the MW definition as stated gives no basis for that assumption. It would help to have link to the definition, to allow verification.
Toonami is a programming block on Cartoon Network. Indeed it is, and is described in its lead as a programming block. That's why it is categorised in Category:Television programming blocks in the United States and Category:Cartoon Network programming blocks, rather than in a category of "television shows" or "television programs". This nomination will not change the categorisation of Toonami, so its mention here is a red herring.
The claim that my "clarity and consistency" rationale is based on only one page is false. The existence of the head article is only of any reasons offered in the nomination.
The claimed searches on https://www.theguardian.com/us are unlinked, so can't be verified: it's not clear what precise terms were used. It's also unclear what Historyday01 thinks those search results demonstrate. The fact that the results include both "program" and "programme" doesn't help make any decision about how to name categories.
The op can cite the style guide as listing television shows, but the same page DOES list "TV programmes" under titles, which is almost convenient they skipped over that. The op also didn't say anything about this entry for the word "program" in the same style guide
i checked https://www.theguardian.com/guardian-observer-style-guide-t, which list words and phrases beginning with the letter "T". The only entry for "television" is "television shows". I didn't look at the section under titles, and the claim that I conveniently skipped over is unfounded ABF. It is also irrelevant, because that section is about typography (italics and capitalisation), not about terminology.
The fact that the "program" section (on a different page) permits the phrase "television programme" is also irrelevant. I never claimed or implied that the Guardian/Observer somehow bans the phrase "television programmes" — my point is that "television shows" is acceptable terminology at the Guardian/Observer (neither deprecated as an American nor dismissed as informal), and so is suiatble term for UK usage per MOS:COMMONALITY.
There is nothing inherently flawed about searching for "television shows" and "television "television program(me)s" rather than "TV shows" or "TV program(me)s". The proposal is to rename to "television shows" not "TV shows", so I see no relevance to searching for the informal abbreviation.

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me respond to @BrownHairedGirl. I cited the Merriam-Webster definitions as examples that program and show are not the same, and from reading the definitions I came to the conclusion that program/programme is broader than show. In terms of Toonami, I understand this will not change the categorization of that page, but I was trying to make that as part of the point that programs/programmes and shows are not the same. In terms of the "clarity and consistency" rationale, I would not say it is based on only one page, but that page on television programs is a key part of your argument, which can be knocked down. In terms of the searches on https://www.theguardian.com/us, I literally used the search bar on their website, using the terms I noted in my comment. I was trying to say that the terms television program/program, and tv show are equally common terms on the site. Additionally, when it comes to the style guide, I was just pointing out you missed the entry for the word program. I'll let others make their conclusions about that. Furthermore, in terms of the searches, I do think something was missed by not looking for the terms "TV shows" or "TV program"(or "TV programmes"), which I would say undermines your argument, because not including those terms would limit your search results, as it is important to search for abbreviations, as not every article about shows or programs writes out the word television. Of all the reviews I have read of shows and programmes I like (mostly animations), I can't even remember one article where the reviewer writes out the word television, as they usually refer to "TV show" or "tv program."Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, you claim to cite Merriam-Webster, but the links you provide are to Dictionary.com. Please make up your mind which you are citing.

Furthermore, the links you provide are irrelevant: they are to dicdefs of the bare words "show" and "program", whereas we are discussing the phrases "television show" and "television program(me)".

Your continued ABF about the style guide is as irrelevant as it is uncivil, because once again you miss the whole point of the nomination: that it is about the equivalence of the phrases "television show" and "television program(me)", not about the existence of either.

You say that you are trying to make the point that programs/programmes and shows are not the same. That would be a relevant point if you were talking about the "television show" and "television program(me)" rather than the bare words ... but you have not produced a single reliable source which supports your claim that the phrases "television show" is narrower term than "television program(me)". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also opposing "series" for reasons mentioned above. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Glad to hear that. Corrected my above comments per suggestion from OP at errors in naming of individual users.Historyday01 (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support move all to '-- television shows' - This aligns with the main space article at television show. "Show" is the most common, generic, and lump term for these. WP:NCTV does actually use "show" as a lump term to cover program/mes, series, TV movies, etc. - and it being so general a term, it is not used in page titles for that reason. "Series" would not work as not everyting is a series. Even if one disagrees on it being the commonname, "show" is an opportunity for WP:COMMONALITY over the "progam/programme" problem. Lastly, its silly to think of "television show" as "vernacular" or too informal - it is a long-standing industry term and part of everyday speech. -- Netoholic @ 01:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"it is a long-standing industry term...".

Television industry glossary / terminology

Credits. Listings of all those involved in making a program, usually appearing at the end of a television program or film.
Cume. The total audience size (number of viewers) for a program or series of programs over several showings.
Edit. In television, to record from any program source altering the duration or temporal sequence of events....
Electronic Field Production. (EFP) Production of a television program or program segment by recording material on location....
Insert. A shot or sequence inserted into a television program used to illustrated a subject.
Master. The finished copy of a program from which copies are made for distribution.
Rating. The percentage of the total potential television homes tuned to a specific program.
Share. The percentage of the total television sets in use that are tuned to a specific program.
Titles. Graphic information appearing at the beginning of a program....

– Television Production Handbook, Glossary, pg. 99

BIOPIC
Short for 'biographical picture', a film (or, less frequently, a television programme)
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
A work that depicts sexual activity involving children...which have led to controversy over even critically acclaimed... television programmes like No Child of Mine (1997),
DIRECTOR
The person responsible for the physical creation of a film or television programme
PHONE-IN
A television or radio programme, usually broadcast live,
PRODUCER
The person ultimately responsible for the creation of a film or programme.
SPOOF
A film or television programme that pokes fun at specific films, genres or people for comic or satirical effect.

– Glossary, BFI Screenonline

Breakbumper An animation or logotype briefly shown after the end of a programme....
Closed Captioning Text version of a programme's dialogue....
Clutter An excessive number of non-programme elements (such as commercials)....
DBS - Direct Broadcasting (by) Satellite Television and radio programmes
DOG - Digitally Originated Graphic A station logo or slogan permanently displayed on screen during a programme.
Hammocking Placing a new or poorly-performing programme between two established popular programmes in order to boost viewing figures.
Live-on-tape A pre-recorded program produced in real time, usually with a studio audience, for later broadcast.
Nielsen Ratings Survey of US viewers by the AC Nielsen Company to establish the audiences for individual programmes and their demographics.
Producer ...the person responsible for an individual program - a radio producer or a television producer.
SB - Simultaneous Broadcasting British term for the broadcast of the same programme from multiple transmitters.
Sponsorship In the United States, the practice of a company funding the making of a program
Spot advertising A commercial or commercials run in the middle of or between programmes
Subtitles Text version of a programme's dialogue....
Teaser A part of a program played before the title sequence....

– Broadcasting Terminology, TranslationDirectory.com

Prime Broadcast Program Among Hispanics
Prime Broadcast Programs Among African-Americans
Prime Broadcast Programs Among Same Gender Spouse or Unmarried Partner - United States
Prime Cable Programs Among Same Gender Spouse or Unmarried Partner - United States

– Discover What Americans Are Watching, Playing, Listening To, and More., Nielsen Company (US)

Just a few samples of "program" or "programs" in the glossary:

ad hoc network: A group of stations that is formed for a special purpose, such as the showing of a one-time TV program or series
air show: A TV program as actually broadcast;
Area of Dominant Influence (ADI): ...An ADI rating was the percent of people viewing a specific TV program.
average audience (AA): The number of households tuned to a radio or TV program
billing: A listing of performers and others on a program,
blip: A brief interruption of sound on a program or tape; to interrupt or delete sound, as in blipping an expletive from a TV program.
broadcast: A single radio or TV program;
buy rate: In pay-per-view TV, the percentage of subscribers that purchase a program.
clip: A short segment of a program.
credit: Acknowledgment of work done....A pre-credits sequence starts a film or TV program before the title appears.
delayed broadcast (D.B.): The broadcast of a radio or TV program at a time later than its original transmission
dub: A dupe or duplicate;...also used as a verb, as in to dub something into the body of a radio or TV program
inherited audience: The segment of the audience of a radio or TV program that stays tuned and is carried over to the next program;
jump cut: A transition in a film or TV program that breaks continuous time
laugh track: The audio component of a TV situation comedy or other program on which audience laugher is inserted,
march on: Opening music titles, or other identification of a radio or TV program.
miniseries: A short series or sequence of related programs, such as one every night for five consecutive nights rather than one a week
net weekly audience: The number of individuals or households tuned in at least once a week to a daily radio or TV program
network: A group of radio or TV stations that broadcast the same programs.
off-network: A program available for syndication after it has been broadcast on a network.
on-scene show: A TV program produced at the site of an earlier murder, accident, or other event, sometimes reenacted.
opening billboard: The introduction of a radio or TV program, which may include highlights or names of the cast or sponsors.
outro: The standard conclusion of a radio or TV program;
pay-per-view TV (PPV): A system in which payment is made for a single showing of a program.
prefade or pre-fade: To start the final part of a radio or TV program
promo: ...the word refers to the preliminary advertisement or announcement of a radio or TV program,
PUT: Persons using television, the number of viewers watching television programs during a time period, expressed as the PUT-level.
running time: The time from the start to the end of a program,
satellite hit: Slang for a TV program that is successful because it follows a very popular program.
season: A period in the fall when new TV programs are introduced by the networks.
second season: A period after January when unsuccessful network television programs are replaced or rescheduled
soap opera: A dramatic serial TV program,
stripping: Preparing a series for reruns and syndication by reducing--stripping--or editing the programs,
stunting: The use of unusual techniques to develop audiences or customers, such as starting the TV season with a two-hour episode of a program that regularly lasts 30 or 60 minutes
take rate: In pay-per-view television, the percentage of subscribers who purchase the specific programs offered during a particular period,
tones and bars: A test pattern that precedes a TV program,
trailer: ...a promotional announcement at the end of a radio or TV program about a forthcoming program;
voice-over (VO): The sound of an unseen narrator on a TV program or film;
wraparound: The introductory and concluding segments of a program or series;

– Broadcast Terminology, Medialink Broadcasting Glossary (from Webster's New World Dictionary of Media and Communications by Richard Weiner)

Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC); edited [+1 source] 09:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHERRYPICKING, and I'll not be participating in a tit-for-tat. Its no argument that ample sources can be found that use both terms. In fact, Google Ngrams shows a particular swap in prevalance of the terms with "show" now dominating in current sources. -- Netoholic @ 09:38, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No tits-for-tats about it. They're merely examples of the terminology used by the television industry, as published in reliable sources about the television industry. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 09:09, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pyxis Solitary, I appreciate you putting together this list of the mentions of TV programs in various authoritative broadcast sources. That is helpful in disproving the claim by the OP.Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Historyday01, that's a straw man. It does not in anyway disprove the claims in the nomination, because the nomination didn't claim that program(me) wis not used. The whole point of the nomination is that all three terms are used, so per MOS:COMMONALITY we use the one which is common to all varieties of English. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- This is an ENGVAR issues. When I (in England) watch the news on TV, I am watching a programme, not a "show". I have no objection to American categories being renamed if American WPans want that, but leave the rest of it alone. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- When the BBC write about the cancellation of the news programme by Victoria Derbyshire they call it a show: Victoria Derbyshire 'absolutely devastated' after her TV show is cut; Guardian BBC facing backlash over decision to axe Victoria Derbyshire show; Telegraph Victoria Derbyshire 'absolutely devastated' after BBC axes her show; New Statesman The BBC’s cancellation of The Victoria Derbyshire Show ends a lifeline for ordinary people. Jeremy Kyle Show. I must say as another UK resident I am astonished to hear that there is anything American about 'show'. 'Program' is American. Oculi (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Peterkingiron, the whole point of the nomination is to apply MOS:COMMONALITY, instead of having an avoidable WP:ENGVAR inconsistency. Oculi has provided evidence of how "television how" is common and acceptable use in British reliable sources, and the nomination also includes plenty of such evidence. It's a pity to see evidence being ignored in favour of unsupported assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi, while I see what you are saying, this is clearly an instance of cherrypicking as those are only selected articles in specific publications.--Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Standardise somehow. Sigh. The tree is a huge convoluted mess, and this is why I gave up trying to follow-up on the 2017 CfDs, some of which I initiated. I wouldn't be opposed to overturning the February 2017 CfD that renamed Category:Television programs by country to Category:Television shows by country, since it was indeed quite poorly attended. But the earlier December 2016 CfD also saw objections to programs/programmes. I'm not holding on to much hope that consensus can be squeezed out of this. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The more recent Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_31#Category:Television_programs, which reached the same conclusion, was not poorly attended. Oculi (talk) 20:35, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul_012, perhaps we could use the term "programmes" instead of using "programs" only because "programmes" seems more encompassing and would result in not having to change those currently named "programmes." I would also not be opposed to overturning the Feb. 2017 CfD which renamed "renamed Category:Television programs by country to Category:Television shows by country" as you noted.Historyday01 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion, perhaps this nomination can be relisted as a choice between option A, B and C (all shows, all programs or all programmes). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would agree that most usage equates program(me) with show, the latter which avoids spelling differences among various English variants. Series, as has been floated, I think is different in that one expects more than a one-off and would seemingly exclude news and (some) sports. Standardization makes sense, but I'm not so sold on "show" to really !vote for it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Matches main article and removes need for WP:ENGVAR differences. Evidence seems clear this is the normally accepted term in both US and UK. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The statement was made that changing "program/programmes" to "show", "aligns with the main space article at television show." About the article:
The request to move the name "Television program" to "Television show" was made on 18:57, 28 November 2017 by User:Netoholic. Three editors responded: 2 supported / 1 opposed. The page was moved on 00:04, 6 December 2017. Moving the article from "Television program" to "Television show" was based on the opinion of three editors. That's it.
Aside from the move proposal made in the article's Talk page, I looked at Requested moves/Archive 30 (28 May 2017–6 March 2018) and found no RM mention of "Television program → TV show". Then I went to WP:TV and searched Archive 25 (17 June 2017–29 January 2018) and did not find an announcement about the move discussion.
To see how involved with the article had been those who participated in the move proposal, I checked the Wikipedia Page History Statistics (edits and users) for the article and Talk page. As of 8 May 2020: Netoholic has made 10 edits to the article, the first on 30 November 2017; and 4 edits in the Talk page, all made on 28 November 2017‎. The first editor to support the proposal made only 1 edit to the article, on 6 December 2017; and only 1 edit in the Talk page, made on 2 December 2017‎. The second editor to support the proposal has not made any edits to the article; and only 1 edit in the Talk page, on 2 December 2017‎. The editor that opposed it has not made any edits to the article; and 2 edits in the Talk page, made on 4 December 2017‎.
I'm curious ... if the editors that replied in the "Requested move 28 November 2017" discussion never made any edits to the article before the proposed move was posted in the Talk page, and if the proposal does not appear in Requested moves, and was not announced in WikiProject Television (where it would have generated replies from a variety of editors interested in television related articles) -- how did the three editors find out about the request to change the article's title? Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 13:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sex horror films

Propose deleting Category:Sex horror films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Sex horror films" is not a name I have ever seen used for anything. Maybe the crator meant "pornographic horror films", but this category currently contains articles which are not pornos; and Category:Pornographic horror films already exists. ★Trekker (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The category's main article is erotic horror. Perhaps a better title would be erotic horror films. Dimadick (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both Category:Erotic horror and Category:Erotic horror films already exist.★Trekker (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 15 07:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Erotic horror films. Redundant category. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 19:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the first article is already in Category:Erotic horror films while the other two articles are about rape and violence, hardly about erotica. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frankish kings of Burgundy

Propose deleting Category:Frankish kings of Burgundy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, king of Burgundy was a mere secondary title of the Frankish kings and emperors from the conquest of Burgundy by the Franks in 534 until the definitive fragmentation of the Carolingian Empire in 888. The previous discussion in 2015 resulted in no consensus. This nomination is very similar to this one regarding its sibling category which was discussed recently and resulted in deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Secondary titles are defining in my view. But in this case, the Frankish kingdom under the Merovingians typically fragmented to sub-kingdoms. Burgundy had its own kings between 534 and 613. Then it was annexed by Neustria, but maintained its own distinct administration until 751. Dimadick (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, Burgundy was divided between different Frankish kingdoms in 534, please check the list of kings. And what does a distinct administration mean in this era? Surely not an own parliament and an own prime minister. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support hat notes directing to the Frankish kings is a better way to treat subsidiary titles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:50, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment And how would you locate the ones who actually ruled Burgundy, among a group of people who did not? Dimadick (talk) 21:33, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The hatnote can be placed at Category:Kings of Burgundy which is for actual rulers of Burgundy. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 15 07:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Secondary titles are non-defining in my view. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transformers: Chojin Masterforce character redirects to lists

Propose renaming Category:Transformers: Chojin Masterforce character redirects to lists to Category:Transformers: Super-God Masterforce character redirects to lists

Nominator's rationale: Transformers: Chojin Masterforce redirects to Transformers: Super-God Masterforce, so the category should be renamed accordingly. Morriswa (Charlotte Allison) (talk) 05:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Adelaide Football Club Hall of Fame inductees

Propose Deleting Category:Adelaide Football Club Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and WP:OVERLAPCAT

We don't have an article on the Adelaide Football Club Hall of Fame, the Adelaide Football Club makes no mention of it, and none of the 7 articles in the category even mention it either so it's clearly not defining. (In contrast, the Australian Football Hall of Fame is clearly defining to careers.) If anyone wants to create a main article, I listed the current category contents here so no work is lost. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Background We deleted similar team/club specific halls of fame here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a NN AWARD. Possibly listify first, but probably better not to. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Bladesmith Society Hall of Fame inductees

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:American Bladesmith Society Hall of Fame inductees

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

The American Bladesmith Society works to bring back the craft of artisanal knife making and created this award in 1995. William F. Moran founded this organization and is undoubtedly defined by it but there are only two other people in this category (who died in 1872 and 1963) and only mention the award in passing and do not seeem defined by it. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]