Talk:BBC News Online

BBC News Online refers to the website service of BBC News, while BBC refers to the broadcasting service which I think is an important distinction to not have this redirect. Since we're citing the news source, it's better to link to BBC News Online. —mikemoral (talk) 07:30, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * What would you say about BBC News? acagastya PING ME! 07:38, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've found a couple of articles about BBC News (BBC News website expands RSS license terms to allow commercial use and BBC newsreader sacked after conviction for wounding teenager). Those fit in Category:BBC. I don't think that BBC News Online should redirect to the category. We have used the site often as a source. I think it's better to link to w:BBC News Online since I think it's more important to link to information about the news agency rather than to our category for the BBC. —mikemoral (talk) 06:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * we need at least five articles to create a category page. But what is true for BBC news, must be applicable for BBC news online. acagastya PING ME! 08:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we can create a cat for BBC News with three articles, rather than five. The question in my mind is, if we had a category for BBC News, would it be acceptable to redirect "BBC News Online" to "Category:BBC News", or would it still be needful to send the online variant to en.wp?  --Pi zero (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are some categories in football (soccer) like the 2011 Women's World Cup or 2014 World Cup which has just one story. Question is, how often are we going to write about BBC for it to have an independent category with some value. (as a football fan, it is disappointing to see 2014 FIFA World Cup category without any important articles) Those detailed categories should exist if someone is going to (or on the bigger scale, someone is willing to) write about it. acagastya PING ME! 17:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * There are a few one- or two-article categories, yes. Afaik most of them either were created by someome who wasn't aware of standard practice at the time, or were created by accident; and either way they didn't seem worth going out of our way to delete.  In (I suspect) at least a couple of cases I've created a category for someone when we wrote their obituary, even though we only had one previous article about them, because I get kind of sentimental about people in that situation &mdash; just as it seems we ought to remember them with an obit, I also want to provide a category.  And of course we created a category for each country in the world regardless of whether we had any articles about it, and then set out to write at least one article that would go in each of those cats (though I've a memory we missed one).  --Pi zero (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

well, creating a page just because something else exist, is itself wrong. acagastya PING ME! 18:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * We've mentioned a bunch of different occasional practices here; which one are you particularly criticizing? --Pi zero (talk) 19:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
 * In general => . I was not critisising -- I was just pointing out. acagastya PING ME! 06:39, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't really proposing a new category, but rather I don't think this redirect is necessary. If there's more articles about/related to BBC News itself, then a Category:BBC News should be made. I still think that BBC News Online should link to the en.wp page, but if there's a cat for BBC News I don't see why not redirect it there. —mikemoral (talk) 09:05, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. If we can create Category:BBC News, I'd be in favor of doing so.  If we do create that cat, I agree it would be fine for this redirect to go there.  I don't yet have a fully formed opinion on whether this redirect is appropriate to Category:BBC, in absence of the narrower category, nor the redirect .  --Pi zero (talk) 11:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)