Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 29 January 31 >

January 30[edit]

Category:Far-left political parties[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The same issue is a constant problem across 100s of infoboxes. There are no universal, global standards of the left-right axis, and categorizing articles along the axis is a dead end. The category merely invites to edit warring, and does not help in structuring the encyclopedia. Soman (talk) 21:05, 30 January 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.

Category:Procurement practices[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 19#Category:Procurement practices. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it is not clear how this category distinguishes itself from its parent category, the large amount of articles in the parent category also have a very practical character. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate. There is no advantage to merging into a category with 30 other specific subcategories, while the phrase "procurement practices" is a well-known business term about various procedures used in formal purchasing of materials. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 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.

Feature films by country[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: merge each Category:CountryName feature films to Category:CountryName films‎. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion these categories are not needed, as all films are implied to be feature-length, unless they are short films. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted - I've added that to the list. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 20:55, 30 January 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.

Category:Works based on Pachelbel's Canon[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 both, and possibly listify. To assist anyone who wants to create lists, I have made a list of the pages currently in each category:
Propose converting to list:
Nominator's rationale: There was a time, when I was so broken-hearted. Because I tried to categorize a certain song as being quite obviously influenced by Pachelbel but this was reverted as vandalism. My theory is that membership in categories like these is based less upon the degree of observable derivation, and more upon whether the fans allow it to be mentioned. ―cobaltcigs 10:56, 30 January 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.

Category:Films that break fourth wall[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ignoring the poor English, this is non-defining and trivial. A similar category was deleted previously. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this is nonsense, we do not punish editors for unpleasant behavior by deleting categories that they create. In the previous discussion there were substantive arguments in favor of deleting the category, that is the reason why it got deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 30 January 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.

Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Phase II (fan series)[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: My first choice is deletion due to an overly narrow scope. This is for users who like a Star Trek fan series - There's only one article that users in the category could reasonably be expected to collaborate on (even if we assume those in a "who like" category have a collaborative intent, which is highly debatable), Star Trek: New Voyages. My second choice is to rename the category to match the article title - Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: New Voyages. VegaDark (talk) 05:43, 30 January 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.

Category:Wikipedians who use Ecosia[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Extensive precedent to delete other "search engine" categories, see here. It does not help benefit the encyclopedia to know which search engine a particular Wikipedian prefers to use. VegaDark (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It can help to know this for an individual in very rare, specific cases such as the one you cite. it cannot help to group said users in a category, however - It is common to conflate the idea that certain information being useful to know means that it useful to group by way of a user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely passing a remark because I disagreed with a lot of what was said in the nomination. I wasn't suggesting what should happen about the category. Thincat (talk) 10:09, 1 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_30&oldid=1073191648"