Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 24 August 26 >

August 25[edit]

Category:Cats that are obese[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=delete. In this case these two outcomes are equivalent as User:kennethaw88 pointed out. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:04, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Kind of a crazy category, but if we are to have it, I think it should be named in less "present-tense" way, since some of the cats are dead, others will die in the future, and some may remain alive but slim down and no longer be obese. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pun We should get rid of fat cats because of narrow cats? :) Hiding T 10:20, 26 August 2016 (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:People from Marshall, Arkansas[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) 03:07, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:32, 25 August 2016 (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:Vintage 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: delete. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defined as "video games from the 1970s and 1980s". This is adequately categorized by Category:Video games by year and avoids the somewhat subjective terminology of "vintage". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless. Even though it technically has an inclusion criterion, people will ignore it, and it's both subjective and a moving target (most millennials probably consider games from 2005 to be "vintage" at this point).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:41, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redundant. Video games are already categorised by year. Also agree with use of "vintage" as subjective terminology. --The1337gamer (talk) 11:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The definition is arbitrary and just the creator's idea as "vintage".--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:18, 29 August 2016 (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:Integral art[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) 03:18, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category really not useful at all. Not a proper art genre, certainly, and little in the way of sources identifying what "integral art" is supposed to be. jps (talk) 20:52, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a non-topic, a vague, general idea of art that might in some way connect to Integral theory (Ken Wilber), which is what Integral art redirects to, though the article is not about art. There is no "integral art" genre, movement, style, etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:24, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both. This is really an "artists by opinion" category. Johnbod (talk) 02:02, 28 August 2016 (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:Knowledge user templates[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) 03:24, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant with all the subcats of Category:Userboxes that already categorize people by their professional and editorial interests and expertise. Has nothing in it but a template that is already categorized topically, and a malfunctional meta-template that has been taken to TfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:55, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and as unnecessary as the template seems to be on its way to deletion too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related TfD notice: The (broken and unused) template this category was created for is up for TfD here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  23:21, 27 August 2016 (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:Violence in media[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, using the word media without a modifying adjective is useless for navigation and violates WP:PRECISION, which is one of the reasons we use works (subcats of category:Creative works) for these things.

However, in this case, as these are mostly just groupings of creative works that someone deemed to be violent, these require references, which can't be done in categories as we all know.

This is also rather WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. If one character, once in an entire work, touches another in an aggressive manner, would that work now qualify for this category? As conflict tends to be a part of literature, I think these cats may become all-inclusive.

Listify, if wanted, I suppose. - jc37 14:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nominator, per WP:OR, amongst other things. - jc37 14:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete pure subjective cat and original research; moreover, it casts too wide a net: violence in media includes coverage of various crimes, wars, disasters, terrorist attacks, as well as most media that some would classify as sci-fi (Star Wars, Aliens, Star Trek franchises all have violence), westerns (when a couple of cowboys meet at high noon, they are doing manicures), the bible and commentary on it (lots of slaying, smiting, etc.), crime shows (unless all they focus on is bouncing checks and non-violent crimes), news, many adventure (whats a Hobbit movie without some axe play? etc.), and on-and-on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:10, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Different reactions for each of the three categories:
Oppose deleting Category:Violence in media because there at least five articles in this category that are objectively about violence. I'm neutral about the word "media", so a rename to replace the word "media" in the category title could be an option. Also, the category may well be purged a bit.
Support deleting Category:Anti-abortion violence in media because it is sort of empty.
Unsure about deleting Category:Anti-abortion violence in fiction, if possible we should consider precedents. If deleted, listification may be an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the subcats of Category:Media issues seem to have similar issues. Maybe a group rename to Category:About the portrayal of X in fiction. This whole set of "media X" trees probably needs a reOrg. For example, there's the mess of a conflation of fiction (medium of creative work) with news reportings (journalistic media), which should be sorted out. One of many reasons that the word media needs adjective modification to meet WP:PRECISION. - jc37 16:48, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jc37: pinging the nominator to continue this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these categories have the tendency of categorizing subjects by very minor aspects of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2016 (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:Former Visigothic temples[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) 03:26, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by someone who doesn't understand that in English "temple" cannot mean "church". The Visigoths never built places of worship until converted to Christianity. Now empty. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's both empty and a misnomer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:56, 25 August 2016 (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:Book covers[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 to Category:Fair use images of book covers. @Johnbod:This category, as currently worded, is explicitly for fair use images, and if you think there's enough reason to create a parent cateogry which can include free images, that's beyond the scope of this diuscussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:09, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Make clear what this category is for to avoid articles about book covers (some examples) being placed in it. The new category name should be consistent with other subcategories of Category:Wikipedia promotional files. Note: After any rename the Book covers category should be recreated as a category for articles (under Category:Books) and the 4 articles about book covers moved into it. DexDor (talk) 06:03, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, I did not notice your comment above re: articles in this category and at some point removed them as inappropriate for the current image-based category. Three of the four were bio articles of illustrators (Alessandro Biffignandi and Robert Bonfils (American illustrator), and Bearcat removed Emanuele Taglietti), which would not belong in a potential "Book covers" category either. The fourth is Embroidered binding, which would be fine in such a category, but we should not be creating a category for one article.— TAnthonyTalk 18:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At the moment Category:Bookbinding contains all sorts of article relevant to that topic. There are in fact a number of articles covering individual books with important "covers", such as St Cuthbert Gospel (the oldest Western book cover). But "Book covers" may not be the best title for any new category. Johnbod (talk) 18:49, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Just in case whoever implements the potential rename is unaware, {{Non-free book cover}} adds this category to images and should be updated to reflect this change; I imagine this will move almost all of the content to the new category.— TAnthonyTalk 04:12, 1 September 2016 (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/2016_August_25&oldid=1074816068"