Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 18 January 20 >

January 19[edit]

Category:Occupation of the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge[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. SQLQuery me! 23:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These articles may all be linked, but the category is not necessary. Linking between articles should be sufficient. Besides, none of the entries in this category are applicable to the category's parents. (In other words, articles apart from the parent article would not be categorized under "2016 crimes in the United States", "2016 in Oregon", "2016 protests", and "Protests in Oregon".) --Another Believer (Talk) 21:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like since you posted this, there are now 7, however one of those is a redirect to the main Occupation article, so it's effectively 6 articles. Leitmotiv (talk) 17:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then perhaps a navbox is appropriate, or the flow of the article needs to be improved so that readers can easily navigate to connected articles. But this category is not being used properly as a subcategory (the parent categories would not likely be added to the articles within the category being discussed). ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:55, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now There are only 2 articles that currently belong in this category (1, 2). The rest of the current articles are WP:OCASSOC or WP:PERFCAT of people who are not defined by this event, at least not yet. Depending on how this plays out, there might be enough articles for a category in the future so no objection to recreating if we can get up to 5 or so non-biography articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep for now, nomination is too soon per WP:RAPID. You can always re-nominate later. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 00:38, 20 January 2016 (UTC) [reply]

NEW INFORMATION seeing as how a Timeline article has been created and the topic is growing steadily, I repeat my point that the nomination is too early per WP:RAPID and should be set aside for now. Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz (talk) 13:45, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether we keep for now or delete for now, any decision here shouldn't prevent re-evaluation of the category after the standoff ends. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Considering all the talk and effort that's going on about merging and/or deleting many of the articles in that category, this would leave said category with only maybe one or two categories in its roster, maybe even none. I created the category because I thought categorization would help better organize things related to the subject, but I agree that a navbox can work too. Parsley Man (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion Just so you know, since I'm a regular at the main article NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 06:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parent category per WP:SMALLCAT or else purge, as there are only two articles that belong in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- This is a controversy of which I had not heard. It appears to have generated a lot of WP content, but I doubt we need much of it NOTNEWS. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge This incident is minor, relatively speaking. These right-wingers wanted to martyr themselves like what happened in the Waco siege. There is no category for the Waco siege. This category is WP:RECENTISM. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems useful to have separate (sub)categories, if only to keep the articles about the refuge somewhat apart from the story of its intended abuse. 2015.ww (talk) 21:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems relevant. There are other categories with similar numbers of articles. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • News Update the standoff is over, if that influences anyone's votes. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not upmerge per RevelationDirect, who wrote, "There are only 2 articles that currently belong in this category (1, 2). The rest of the current articles are WP:OCASSOC or WP:PERFCAT of people who are not defined by this event, at least not yet." Since Wikipedia:Overcategorization#People associated with advises against categorizing people who are associated with this occupation, there would only be two articles in this categories, which would mean Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth applies. I recommend against upmerging per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#People associated with. Cunard (talk) 06:37, 25 February 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.

Massacres in People's Republic of China[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 to Category:Massacres in China. – Fayenatic London 23:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's kind of obvious but I say a "the" needs to be added. Jackninja5 (talk) 18:46, 19 January 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.

Roman Thessaly[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. – Fayenatic London 23:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge since Thessaly was part of Roman Macedonia during the Roman era. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 19 January 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:Saints of Late Roman Thessalonica[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. MER-C 13:03, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:NARROWCAT, there is no other city category in Category:Christian saints of Late Antiquity. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 19 January 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:Syrian involvement in the Syrian Civil War[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 Category:Syrian involvement in the Syrian Civil War to Category:Syrian Civil War, and Keep Category:Syrian Air Force involvement in the Syrian Civil War. SQLQuery me! 23:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting
Category:Syrian involvement in the Syrian Civil War
Category:Syrian Air Force involvement in the Syrian Civil War
Nominator's rationale: Is there a real need for Syria's involvement in the SYRIAN Civil War to have its own category? I mean it is taking place in Syria so practically everything involves Syria during the war. Jackninja5 (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit - The Syrian Air Force involvement is also on for the same reason and all articles and the one subcategory in that category can just as easily be added to Category:Syrian Air Force. Jackninja5 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 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:Minecraft clones[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Minecraft clones" does not accurately describe what the articles in this category are. Ace of Spades (video game), for example, is not a clone of Minecraft. Anarchyte 10:36, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Calling them clones pretty much just says that they were made just as clones of Minecraft and for no other reason. That clearly isn't true. Jackninja5 (talk) 14:27, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a subcategory of Category:Video game clones, which seems well defined. If you think some entries were more than clones, either point out their distinctions or remove the categories. Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Open world video games. I have no objection to the concept of "clones" being categorized but grouping individual games seems subjective and my overstate how derivative they are when a groundbreaking game may have just opened up a new genre. Total Miner describes itself as "a block-building sandbox-style game similar to Minecraft" which sounds more neutral and encyclopedic than this category. (I feel the same way about the sister categories like Category:Pac-Man clones and Category:Maze games.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:34, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per reliable sources, such as WP:VG/RS. "Minecraft clone" is indeed the common usage of the term. Regardless if accurate and that it's diminutive to some of the games in question, we ought to follow the sources. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hellknowz: Breaking down all the articles in this category, Ace of Spades (video game) and Terraria are in no way Minecraft clones. Other articles like CraftWorld and FortressCraft are noted in the article to be influenced by Minecraft but are not "clones". Cube Life: Island Survival looks very unnotable and the sentence saying it's a "Minecraft clone" isn't referenced. As much as they might look like Minecraft, they're Voxel-based video games and will, for that reason, look "blocky". I'm not saying delete the category, I'm saying to rename it to something that covers what the articles really are. Calling them clones is slightly bias. Anarchyte 12:24, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you that it is biased, often rude, and sometimes plain wrong. In fact, it is likely some of those aren't reliably sourced to be called so. But whether we think they are clones or not is irrelevant when reliable independent sources have called them such. They may be real-time strategies in reality, but as far as verifiability is concerned, they have been described as clones. I only just re-added this to Terraria#Reception, and you can check the number of WP:VG/RS references that call it such. I have played the game to death, and it's silly to call it "MC clone", but there we are. Just like everything was "Doom clones" back in the day. We can make a note at the top of the category and the readers can check the articles for details for each game. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:31, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The New Yorker said that Sisters (2015 film) was a bad move but the Montreal Gazette said it was pretty good (source). Both sources are reliable. Which opinion should we categorize this movie by? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If we were categorizing by such criteria, then per WP:BALANCE, both. We wouldn't select just one simply because they're contradictory. Article has to fairly explain all such viewpoints in prose per WP:CATDEF anyway. Since we're describing reviewer interpretation, they are bound to occasionally conflict. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The current category is already a grouping of games that are similar to Minecraft, the proposed rename takes that same inclusion criteria and makes it not be derogatory. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is either derogatory or inprecise, so we are best off just getting rid of it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In video game terms, while the word "clone" does have negative connotations, it's also become a term of art, particularly as the terms "Doom clone" (now First-person shooters) and GTA clone are accepted terms. Clones, in these specific cases, are not meant to meant they outright cloned the game, but that the gameplay is very similar or clearly inspired and founded in Minecraft and may have additional aspects beyond that. Minecraft's play style is unique enough that "open world" or "sandbox" is insufficient to describe that approach alone. --MASEM (t) 20:59, 2 February 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_January_19&oldid=1084319351"