The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Network has recently rebranded back to Citytv, category should be renamed for consistency with updated Citytv article. Requesting here because naming of related parent article was changed too recently to allow for speedy renaming. Add: Expanded nomination to include shows category. RA0808talkcontribs20:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC); edited 18:58, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Rebranding back to their original name just a few years after shortening it does seem a remarkably silly thing to do, but it's true, they really did. Torontonian, can confirm. (Can also confirm that nobody whose paycheque wasn't directly issued by Rogers Communications ever actually stopped calling it Citytv in the first place, but that's another story.) Bearcat (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete suffers the same problems as nearly all "about" categories. How much "about" elves must a film be and what reliable source tells us it's at least that much. And besides, does every Santa Clause movie get categorized here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:05, 13 September 2018 (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.
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. In normal cases PERFCAT is such a strong policy guideline that it would override objections, but participants here have given rationales for treating this as an exception. I will add "regularly" into the category explanation, as that is necessary for the claim that this is WP:DEFINING for the category members. – FayenaticLondon19:53, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I ask you to reconsider that, Johnbod? Just looking at the opening sentences of the articles currently in the category, we have:
Stewart Ainsworth ... "a British archaeological investigator who was regularly seen on Time Team,"
Victor Ambrus ... "became known from his appearances on the Channel 4 television archaeology series Time Team"
Robin Bush ... "was the resident historian for the first nine series of Channel 4's archaeology series Time Team"
John Gater ... "a British archaeological geophysicist, who has regularly featured on Time Team – the Channel 4 archaeological television series – since 1993"
Helen Geake ... "an archaeologist who was one of the key members of Channel 4's popular and long-running archaeology series Time Team"
Beric Morley ... "became a familiar face on the Channel 4 television series Time Team"
Francis Pryor ... "best known [...] for his frequent appearances on the Channel 4 television series Time Team"
With the exception of Ambrus, Bush and Pryor, I don't think any of them would be notable at all had they not appeared on the programme. – Joe (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Time Team, as it was earlier. Note that this cat creation and CfD are not happening in isolation, but that there are half a dozen discussion threads kicked off about this, and other categories or navboxes, all on broadly the same issue. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The goal of PERFCAT and FILMNAV are both to avoid clutter, when many people, appear in many roles, but the overlaps between each group are minor. That's not the problem here. With the exception of Alice Roberts (who is now known for far more than this), the link each way is equally significant. For Baldrick, it's a minor role for him, but he's also the anchorman of the series, thus particularly significant to it, as FILMNAV et al. make specific exception for. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ironically, I created this category in an attempt to reach a compromise with the nominator, who objected to biographies being placed in Category:Time Team, and stated on his talk page that "the defining category would be the type of role they play" (i.e. archaeologist). His suggestion, Category:Television archaeologists doesn't work because none of the members are described as "television archaeologists" in sources, they're described specifically as appearing on Time Team. And I have to say, his IDHT-crusade to enforce WP:PERFCAT universally and inflexibly, even where its rationale doesn't make any sense (how can scholars who appeared in a single work be "overcategorised" by works they appeared in?), is getting quite tiresome.
I would argue that appearing on Time Team is a defining characteristic of most if not all of the members per WP:COPDEF, the reason(s) for the person's notability; i.e., the characteristics the person is best known for. With one or two exceptions, they are otherwise "run-of-the-mill" working archaeologists or academics that became notable because of their appearance on this television show, which has an extra-ordinary significance in the culture of British archaeology. However, if this category is deleted, its members should certainly be put back into Category:Time Team, which I took them out of to create this. – Joe (talk) 16:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:PERFCAT; presumably, these folks had distinguished curricula vitae prior to being on the show; next we'll have appraisers appearing on Antiques Roadshow, which may be a claim to fame, isn't their notability in the WP sense - we need some independent coverage of those folks, as we do these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: It's disappointing that you would make an assumption rather than examine the articles or the sources. In fact, with one or two exceptions they are all notable (in the WP sense) because of their appearance on the programme, which led to a level of coverage that ordinary working archaeologists otherwise rarely receive. – Joe (talk) 10:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (possibly upmerge to TV, but not to TT). Appearing on TT may be a defining characteristic for some people, but that doesn't trump PERFCAT. The correct place to list the important contributors to a programme is in the article text (where it can be explained, referenced etc). The correct place to list the programmes a person has appeared in is the article about the person (again with details, refs etc). Attempting to use the category system to create a X-appeared-in-Y matrix would be of little use to readers (as the lists are better) whilst causing interminable arguments about how many of the programmes that, for example Alice Roberts or Bettany Hughes, has been in they should be categorized for. DexDor(talk)18:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I would add to the definition, probably in the headnote "regularly" appearing, so exclude those who only appeared occasionally. I accept that this technically offends against having performance categories, but several of these are regulars appearing over a long period, so that this is not due to a casual appearance. I can think of a number of other people, some of whom I have met, who appeared occasionally, as a visiting expert, but would not recommend expansion to include them. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:18, 14 September 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:delete. The Burgundian Netherlands started retrospectively in 1384 with the acquirement of only the County of Flanders by Burgundy (but at that time it was entirely unknown that this single acquirement would eventually be expanded to the final territory of the Burgundian Netherlands) and the Burgundian Netherlands ended in 1482. There is certainly no need to diffuse by millennium, all years are within the 2nd millennium. And there is also very little need to diffuse by century, since nearly all years are within the 15th century except for the first 16 years while it only contained the county of Flanders. There is no need to merge, all content is kept in Category:Decades in the Burgundian Netherlands and Category:People of the Burgundian Netherlands. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both millennia items (one possible member) probably keep the rest or most of them. The alternative is to merge all to Category:Burgundian Netherlands on the basis that the polity did not last long enough to need century splits. Anything here can be parented into trees for Spanish/Austrian Netherlands as their precursor. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Your latter alternative option is more extreme than the nomination because it would imply also merging the decade categories which are currently not part of the nomination. Could you elaborate on why you think it is really not an option to just keep the decade categories but delete the century categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OCEPON, with not enough pages or subcategories that are directly related to the subject. We do not need a category to include every season, series, game, cameo role, etc. that included Bird. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 12 September 2018 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
