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: Only 16 of them. Almost all in USA. Our coverage of nursing is pretty thin, and this doesnt seem very helpful, because "specialty" in this context is a miscellaneous category. It's more helpful to put them in the individual subcategories of Category:Nursing specialties. Rathfelder (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- As almost all as USA, they should also be in an American category; they might also be distributed among Category:Nursing specialties sub-cats, but I see no reason for not keeping the present category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are all in American categories. But apart from being American they dont have much in common. Rathfelder (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, we have a List of nursing specialties so do I understand it correctly that there are 'ordinary' nurses versus specialty nurses? If that is the case, the category has some meaning. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That depends a bit what you mean by a speciality. Most nurses, like most clinicians, specialise to some extent. Only people in remote areas deal with everything, and that, in itself, can be regarded as a speciality.Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see that the list article is useful. There is no definition of a speciality in nursing, and practice varies from place to place and time to time.Rathfelder (talk) 09:13, 14 January 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.
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: The text of this category indicates that this category is just for endemic fauna (i.e. animals found only in that region), but categories titled "Fauna of <region>" are not normally restricted to endemic fauna. Note: I've already removed some articles (e.g. Migratory woodland caribou) from the category. Note: the category text indicates that it's for a very vaguely defined region so I would support either making it more specific or merging into another category. DexDor(talk) 16:35, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, disperse the articles to the category that suits best for each of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination changed to merge. DexDor(talk) 15:41, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:00, 9 January 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.
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. MER-C 19:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao just created new subcategories. I wonder if they are going to populate these new subcategories with non-American television news programs by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, given that the category under discussion is not country specific, if named it should be renamed to match the spelling of the previously existing parent. Grutness...wha? 14:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest relisting this nomination including the deletion of the just-created subcategories. As they are apparently not being populated, these categories are just a redundant layer and a nuisance to easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In each case the only content is the corresponding American category. Rathfelder (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 03:00, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I have tagged the categories been added to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's become pretty normal to subcategorize program-genre categories by decade like this — the only reason similar categories for other countries news programming don't exist is because people haven't created them yet, and people mostly haven't created them yet specifically because this scheme wasn't already in place to parent them yet. I can get all of these Canadianized up in a flash, however — in fact, I literally almost did start subcatting Category:Canadian television news programs by decade barely a week ago, and stopped myself only because I was feeling too lazy to tackle a large project right then and there. And all it takes to get them Britified and Frenchified and Germanized, and everywhereelse-ified as well, is somebody actually doing it. Underpopulation is not in and of itself a reason for deleting a category scheme that's clearly populatable with existing content — if we only had one article about any television news program at all, then this would be obvious overcategorization of it, but we have actually have hundreds or thousands, so all we have to do to make it viable is for people to actually start using it. Bearcat (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In theory I do not disagree with this reasoning, but in practice I do. If the creator of these new categories does not bother about populating them, at all, how are editors of Canadian, British, etc. articles articles even going to find out that this tree exists... For this particular case, if you are okay with populating them (taking over the responsibility of the category creator), I'll happily withdraw my support. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Most of these were created in Feb 2019 - plenty of time for editors to be inspired to create siblings for other countries. Oculi (talk) 00:31, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Marcocapelle, though I'd prefer to see the target merged category renamed to Category:Television news programs. I don't think we need the UK/Euro-focused spelling of "programmes." Bearcat makes a solid argument, but I don't see how having a single article in a sub-category is helpful. As additional television program articles are added, could we not simply re-create a television program category for that decade?Doug MehusT·C 01:23, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not a single category in the entire batch has only a "single" article — every last one of them has two subcategories, with the potential for more as somebody who's knowledgeable enough about any given country's news programming to tackle sorting them gets around to it. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat Good call. I missed that; that the two "pages" were actually subcategories. This would then "effectively" break our category hierarchy as we'd have "2010s American television programs" and "2010s Canadian television programs" categories interfiled, presumably, as subcategories of "Television programs"? One alternative might be to merge the decade television programs into a single "North American television programs" category, but that would likely be an unwieldly and unduly large. We could call it "North American television programs by country," which might work, or "North American television programs by country and decade," but that's just a reworking of the existing hierachy. Doug MehusT·C 16:30, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per discussion with Bearcat above and that I missed that the two items in the quoted category are subcategories. Doug MehusT·C 16:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to comment/rant: If the community stopped disliking templates automatically categorizing pages, an article like this could have been populated the moment the pages were created using the television infobox and a little bit of code magic. I find it astonishing each time that the community would rather manually do pointless stuff. --Gonnym (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with templates automatically categorizing pages is that it causes unfixable other problems, including improper categorization of draft or sandbox pages in articlespace categories if somebody uses the template on them; unfixable duplicate categorization if the template is coded to transclude one broad parent category while the articles are actually being sorted into subcategories; and the ability to generate nonsense categories like Category:Cities and towns in (which really did once happen) if there's even the slightest mistake made in the category-generating fields. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, on the basis content has been added since the nomination and, in any case, had (and still has) plenty of scope for content. Though I would think it should be renamed Category:Television news programmes by decade to match the long-existing parent category. Sionk (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As their is evident scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 17:12, 16 January 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.
