Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 16 February 18 >

February 17

[edit]

Category:Lists of works of fiction, by geographical setting, arranged by chronological order

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:Overcategorization, and clumsily named. This is already handled in part by Category:Lists of novels, Category:Lists of films by setting, Category:Lists of television series by setting, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:28, 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:Caucasian muhajirs

[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/2019 March 17#Category:Caucasian_muhajirs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic, in many articles the term "muhajir" is not even mentioned. Note that Muhajir (Caucasus) is a redirect to Circassian genocide but it is also not very clear how the articles in this category are related to the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 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:Daily events

[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:13, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Indiscriminate and unmaintainable category. Wikipedia has literally thousands of articles about things that occur daily, but just three have been selected for this category: sunrise, sunset and a local border ceremony. The natural process of planetary orbit around a star, however, does not have a defining commonality with a ceremony just because they happen daily, but populating this out would not make it more useful: it would become an unbrowsably massive megacategory for thousands upon thousands of things that have nothing else in common with each other. Bearcat (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the parent is Category:Recurring events which is broken down by periodicity i.e. daily, weekly, monthly, annually, biennial etc. I actually don't think there are thousands of articles about daily events, most just wouldn't warrant an article, more likely just a section of another article. Tim! (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, look at it this way: if we're defining sunrise and sunset as "events" for the purposes of this category, then breakfast, lunch, dinner, sleep, rush hour, heartbeats, and breathing are events by exactly the same standard too. Do you see how thinking about it in those terms changes how many articles this would need to contain? Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 19 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:Chronologically arranged lists of works of fiction and semi-fiction, about historical persons

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, as per its sister category nominated three spots up. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:18, 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:Weekly events

[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 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Category:Weekly_events. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:29, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia has literally thousands of articles about things that happen weekly, but only a few things have actually been filed here at all: a subcategory for club nights, a protest, a public ceremony and a political debating process. This is not a useful or defining point of commonality between these four things, but populating it out would make it indiscriminate and unmaintainable as Wikipedia has literally thousands of articles about things that occur weekly. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers and magazines are not "events", and have exactly zero business being in a category with the word "events" in its name. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 19 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:History of Semi-Fictional Biographical Films

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Much too specific a category (and oddly titled), with a single entry. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Semi-fictional" is much too temptingly vague a description too. Arguably, all biopics are "semi-fictional", since they almost all use techniques like creation of composite minor characters, adding dramatic effect, glossing over the boring bits, or Hollywood "reinterpretation" of history. Note also that Wikipedia does not appear to have any articles with the word "semi-fictional" (or "semifictional") in their titles. Grutness...wha? 15:04, 18 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.

Seasons in Canadian curling

[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: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Procedurally, because categories are tagged and only a subset are listed.
Substantively, because:
  1. calendar years are the simplest way of grouping topics chronologically.
  2. the global Category:Years in curling is organised by year
  3. Contrary to the assertion by the nominator @J 1982, I don't see any sign of skiing being grouped by season. I see Category:Years in Nordic skiing, Category:Years in alpine skiing and their subcats, but not seasons. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The articles about skiing have been renamed by season, see 2010–11 in skiing. Also, check out categories like "Category:Seasons in Canadian ice hockey". J 1982 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak support in principle, given that it's a seasonal (i.e., weather-dependent) sport and thus for northern hemisphere countries a typical curling "year" straddles the new year period. Something similar is done - as pointed out - for ice hockey. However, as BHG points out, all categories should be correctly tagged and listed for a legitimate cfd discussion to take place. Grutness...wha? 11:36, 21 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:Donald Glover songs

[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: no consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is simply a redundant category to Category:Songs written by Donald Glover with mirrored content. One of them has to go. Also, this category is inaccurate because it should be titled "Childish Gambino songs" as he doesn’t perform under his real name. Songwriting credit goes to real names. Trillfendi (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually there is a misconception in the nomination. Any category should be named after the name of the article, which makes both category names correct, not that I don't have sympathy with 'Childish Gambino songs.' If the namespace was at Childish Gambino, then I can assure you so would the songwriting credits, check out, for example only, Category:Songs written by Lil Pump‎. Songwriter and performer can be the same or can be different, what the nominator is suggesting is the similar cats for Prince, Paul McCartney, Billy Joel, Prince should be deleted too. Richhoncho (talk)
  • Do Not Rename If Kept Categories should follow the article names, per WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RevelationDirect, the discussion, if there should be a discussion, should be at the article, not the category. I also can't see any guideline, procedure, or common usages that support this nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still, one has to go. Trillfendi (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? @Trillfendi: We have to delete either Category:Songs written by Prince (musician) or Category:Prince (musician) songs; Category:Elton John songs or Category:Songs with music by Elton John, ditto for John Fogerty, J J Cale, Taylor Swift, Kanye West and about 6000 other categories? FWIW, writing a song is not synonymous with performing a song. That is why both categories do and should exist. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:18, 26 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:Medieval Persia

[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 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Category:Medieval_Persia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:38, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, there was no medieval kingdom or empire called Persia. Various dynasties ruled various parts of what currently is Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Persia was the English name for the area. This is probably ultimately a reflection of the English having studied ancient Greek. The country was also not called Iran at the time, so that the use of that name is anachronistic. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as Peterkingiron said, "Persia" is just the English term for the area. The only thing that needs to be looked at here is English usage. A quick glance at google books establishes that "Medieval Persia" is perfectly common. Nor is it outdated, being the title of a 2105 monograph published with Routledge. "Medieval Iran" is a valid synonym, but apparently a slightly less common one. There is no reason to use the deletion process to go out of our way and replace a mainstream term with a slightly less common but acceptable synonym. --dab (𒁳) 06:42, 22 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: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: no consensus. Most of the discussion here focused on whether this is what the nominator appropriately called a genre established in sources. Many sources were cited, but no consensus was formed on whether those should be considered reliable sources for this purpose. (Evaluation might have been more through if Phediuk had explicitly labelled the sources rather than just linking quotes).
Less attention was paid to the first plank of the nomination, viz whether this is a WP:Defining characteristic of these games, and there seems to have been testing of this category against WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT.
I could have relisted the discussion again, but the first relisting generated only three more comments in 8 days and has now been stalled for another 3 days, so I don't hold out much hope of more contributions. As with any no consensus closure, a new discussion in a few months time (with more research by all involved) might produce a consensus one way or he other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 26 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]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 14:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC) [reply]
Den of Geek is an unreliable source and PCGamesN has listicles for all sorts of groupings—e.g., "best anime games" and "best cop/police games"—which doesn't make any a "genre", especially if we already have similar categories that serve the same purpose. czar 15:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The claims made by Czar are variably false, irrelevant, or both. I will address them point for point:
  • First, he claims Den of Geek is not a RS. This is false. Den of Geek is RS for pop-culture pieces as it is from a reliable publisher with editorial oversight; see here and here. A quick Google search turns up over 1200 results on English WP for Den of Geek, and adding "game" to the terms turns up a slew of citations in video game articles too. The fact that it is not listed at WP:VG/Sources does not make it unreliable; per the very same page, "This list is not meant to be exhaustive and only covers works that regularly report on video games and the industry. Sources that otherwise are considered reliable sources in general ... are also reliable for coverage of topics related video games when they do report on these topics. Note that any source in § Reliable checklist is considered just as reliable as those on this list." Den of Geek is therefore a RS.
  • Second, he links to other articles from PCGamesN that aren't about sniper games or even about game genres at all, making them irrelevant. What PCGamesN does in their other articles is not the point of discussion here; what we are discussing is Czar's original rationale for the CfD that sniper games are "Not a 'defining' characteristic or a genre established in sources". This claim is false. Not only have I already demonstrated extensive RS evidence that refers to a "sniper genre" and to "sniper games", (17 different publications, see above), but even the very PCGamesN article in question identifies the sniper games it lists as "the very best the genre has to offer."
  • Third, and most importantly, Czar's exclusive focus on the Den of Geek and PCGamesN overview articles is irrelevant because no such overviews are required for a category. We are not trying to make a master article of the sniper genre, only a category of sniper games; as I have demonstrated above, a master article is not a requirement of a category per WP:CATV. The three requirements are verifiability, neutral point-of-view, and defining characteristics--i.e., RSes consistently and commonly refer to a thing as being a particular thing. Therefore, if RSes commonly and consistently refer to "sniper games" and a "sniper genre", the category should stay. They do. To prove that they do, I have cited a mound of RS evidence above that use the terms "sniper game" and "sniper genre" in reference to specific games, and this category accurately reflects the prevalence of that usage. Therefore, we should keep the category. Phediuk (talk) 16:16, 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:Topics by medium

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I know that the purpose of Category:Topics by medium is to have categories about topics, which are portrayed in media, like Animals in the media, Abortion in the media etc. However there are very few such categories, who truely serve this purpose and the majority would fit better under the category, that I proposed them to be merged into. CN1 (talk) 13:53, 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:Biota

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 23#Category:Biota

Category:Itzy

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:48, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_17&oldid=889070850"