Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 1

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< December 31 January 2 >

January 1

edit

Category:People involved in controversies about women in science and technology

edit
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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 23:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Controversies about women in science and technology was recently deleted, only for it to be recreated (I have speedily deleted it) with this subcategory. As I stated in the prior discussion, "People involved in controversies..." is subjective overcategorization: what level of involvement qualifies one as "involved"? Note also that Category:People involved in controversies does not exist (and rightly so). Even if we take the view that we should start categorizing people by involvement in controversies (a WP:BLP nightmare), a triple-intersection—(a) controversies, (b) about women, (c) in the science and technology sectors—is not the right place to start, considering we do not (and should not, in my opinion) have Category:People involved in gender-related controversies or Category:People involved in science and technology controversies. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2019 (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.

Category:Japanese-American internment books

edit
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: rename. ~ Rob13Talk 03:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not the books, films and camps, etc that are Japanese-American, it's the internees. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2019 (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.

Category:Sniper video games

edit
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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a "defining" characteristic or a genre established in sources. Only connection between these articles is sometimes sharing a thematic element of looking down sniper sights. There are plenty of established, alternative subcategories under Category:Shooter video games for categorizing video games that involve "video games based on and/or inspired by the art of marksmanship and sniping." czar 21:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It most certainly is the same type of usefulness that the guideline speaks of. Per WP:USEFUL again: "An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'" Given that the entire purpose of categories is to be useful for navigation, and this category groups together games defined by subject matter in a way that is already demonstrably supported by RSes (cf. the "best sniper video games" linked above), I vote to keep. Phediuk (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This typically belongs to the type of usefulness arguments to avoid, as is exactly the topic of the essay. Everyone trying to prevent that something is going to be deleted will say that it is useful, so it does not say anything. The question is whether the characteristic is defining or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • 17 different RSes that demonstrably recognize the "sniper game" as a genre

    Using two descriptors is not the same as recognition as a genre, nor as a "defining" trait. If it is recognized as a genre, surely you can find RS that discuss this genre. As of now, sniper game is a redlink. I still don't see the case for this categorization. czar 16:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first two links (here and here) are literally overviews of the genre from RSes, and both explicitly use the word "genre"; most of the rest clearly discuss sniping games in the context of a genre, even citing other games in the same passages. Yes, it does matter when articles use "two descriptors" to consistently describe a game, as that makes those descriptors a defining characteristic (per #3 below), and the descriptors in question are the exact words "sniper genre", used together, in reference to specific games and with comparison to other games. That is an explicit recognition of the sniper genre, and not just by one, but by many RSes, as shown above. Furthermore, your argument that "sniper game" is a redlink is irrelevant; this is not a requirement for a category per WP:CATV. Categories require, according to Wikipedia guidelines at WP:CATV, these three qualities:
  • 1. "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." -- Check. There's a boatload of RSes that refer to sniping games as sniping games and place them in a sniper genre; I've demonstrated 17 different, reliable publications and highlighted the exact phrases describing the relevant games as such, including at least 2 RS overviews of the genre.
  • 2. "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles." -- Check. I'm merely reporting what the sources consistently say, which is that they recognize sniping games and a sniper genre; this justifies a category.
  • 3. "A central concept used in categorising articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." -- Check. Just about any review of a sniping game will describe it as a sniping game and there's a spate of RSes that treat sniping games as a genre and use the exact phrase "sniper genre" to describe them, as demonstrated above with RSes.
  • In short, the sniper game category is both supported by WP policy and accurately reflects consistent RS usage in coverage of sniper games, which places them in such a genre defined by a consistent body of similar games. Per WP guidelines, no master article of sniper games is required, but only the "common and consistent" treatment by RSes of "sniper game" and "sniper genre" as relevant characteristics, and, indeed, both "sniper games" and "sniper genre" are treated as such, by RSes, extensively. Phediuk (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2019 (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.

Category:Projects by year of disestablishment

edit
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 without prejudice against speedy renomination, so long as it is more complete. Pinging Marcocapelle. ~ Rob13Talk 03:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I question the utility of this category tree. There are only subcats for a few years, and those cats in turn contain only 1 to 3 articles. In comparison, the hierarchy of Category:Projects by year of establishment has at least a few dozen years where projects are listed (although very few per year). This disestablishment tree is not representative. Either we fill it properly, or we nuke it, whereby member articles would revert to the relevant Category:Establishments by year tree. — JFG talk 18:39, 1 January 2019 (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.

Category:Spacecraft by year of decommissioning

edit
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 with no prejudice against a more complete speedy renomination, same as above. ~ Rob13Talk 03:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only a couple articles were listed in the whole category tree; I moved them to more appropriate categories such as Category:Derelict spacecraft or Category:Destroyed spacecraft. We should delete the whole empty tree now. — JFG talk 18:44, 1 January 2019 (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.

Category:Christian education in Norway

edit
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: withdrawn. ~ Rob13Talk 03:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A duplicate of Category:Religious schools in Norway. There are 13 similar categories. 6 of them, like this, just contain the category of Religious schools in Foo. 6 have another category, of religious colleges and Universities. Australia is more complicated. I'm inclined to also delete those with only one entry. It doesn't seem very likely that there are religious colleges in those countries, but if there are we can recreate them. Rathfelder (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, oppose, all countries should at least have two subcategories (for ordinary Christian schools and for seminaries). I have just added the Norwegian and German seminaries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont want to delete the school categories. These are mirrors of them. But if there are actually seminaries in the country then we should keep the education categories. Happy to withdraw my proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2019 (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.

Czech small town

edit
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. ~ Rob13Talk 05:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these are five categories for just 1 article, namely Ohrada Zoo. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2019 (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.

Category:Lithuanian churches

edit
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. ~ Rob13Talk 03:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with other similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2019 (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.

Places of worship by city (miscellaneous countries)

edit
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: upmerge all per rationale of previous nomination. ~ Rob13Talk 18:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the categories only contain at most 1 article next to 1 subcategory (usually a churches or mosques subcategory). This is a continuation of yesterday's nomination that was specifically about the United States; today is for the rest of the world. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_1&oldid=1079915281"