Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 14 October 16 >

October 15[edit]

Category:London Monopoly places[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) 01:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure if this really is suitable for a category. I was about to propose listfying it, but it already is List of London Monopoly locations. Gonnym (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete someone's top50 list basically, but is it defining for Pall Mall to be on London's Monopoly game? If so, why is the only reference to such notable feature the last paragraph of the article? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Carlossuarez46: "someone's top50 list basically" How dare you belittle my work with such a cheap shot - as seen below it is actually 26 GOOD ARTICLES that I spent two years improving. Would you like if it I belittled some of your content creation with cheap jibes? I doubt it. Regarding the comment about Pall Mall, because reference bombing a good article is nonsensical. If you want further references, there are some here, here, here and here, not to mention the extensive account in Tim Moore's Do Not Pass Go. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: The editing guideline (not policy) you refer to, says verbatim, "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define[1] 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." The sources I have listed in this debate, plus those further referenced in the aforementioned Good Topic and Featured List adequately justify this. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, for Pentonville Road, this MyLondon source recommends The Castle at No. 54 as a recommended stop on a Monopoly pub crawl, as does this source in The Daily Telegraph. This source notes that The Angel, Islington is on the "Pentonville Road Interchange" (or, as most people would call it, the junction between that and Islington High Street), while this source by the London Evening Standard rounds up the Monopoly locations and ranks them by air pollution, where Pentonville Road (being on the A501 Inner Ring Road, a major traffic artery) comes in for some strong criticism. Meanwhile, Moore's book notes "So swift was Pentonville's decline that less than a hundred years on, it had been reeled all the way back from dark blue to light", referring to the road's decline in character during the 19th century. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:26, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither of these sources is about Pentonville Road, they are all about Monopoly. A relevant source about Pentonville Road is e.g. [1] which does not define the street as a Monopoly place. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, for the reasons stated in the (fully-sourced) lead at List of London Monopoly locations. However, I am currently looking at improving the locations on a standard Irish board, beginning with improving O'Connell Street to GA, and the locations in Atlantic City (for the standard US board) would also be a worthwhile project. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, yes. Then we can have the same for every other game. Risk places, anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:07, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. This is far more likely to be used than the great majority of categories. Whether other stuff exists or doesn't exist is not the point. "is it defining for Pall Mall to be on London's Monopoly game?" - yes, indeed it is. Johnbod (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NONDEF Marcocapelle. Based on my own search looking for whether these places are defined by being on a Monopoly board and finding only specialist websites such as blogs or public interest articles, I do not think being listed on a game board is a defining definition of any of these places, especially given the list itself is referenced mostly to one book dedicated to the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 16:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's only sourced to that one because it's the best one, but it's by no means the only one, as demonstrated by the other sources mentioned in this discussion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was more of a comment, not a total disqualifier. Based on the sources, I do not think being listed on a game board is a defining characteristic of any place and that this should have been deleted a long time ago, though I have no objection to a list. SportingFlyer T·C 18:17, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-defining. Picking two at random - Fleet Street and Trafalgar Square have no mention of Monopoly in the lead, but just a passing mention in a "Cultural references" section masquerading as a trivia section. If kept, it should be moved to Category:London Monopoly locations to match the FL. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:21, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I remember playing the game with an American, who was surprised that it did not have New York street on it. The London locations for the British edition are no more (or less) notable than the equivalents for Canadian, Hong Kong, New Jersey, or other editions. I regard the list article as all we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The multiple independent reliable sources used in the 26 GAs and FL contradict this unsourced assertion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you seen Marcocapelle's comment of 18th October? DexDor (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per NONDEF and because by-games-they-appear-in isn't a good categorization scheme - if it was completed some articles, e.g. some cities, would be in many such categories whilst most streets etc wouldn't be in any. Note: The list/template is a better way of presenting this information to readers. DexDor (talk) 16:16, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These locations aren't defined by this, and we do not have any rule that every list always has to be paired with a corresponding category. Bearcat (talk) 03:42, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Despite the differing viewpoints above, I don't see this as a close call. Reliable sources covering these places would not typically associate them with Monopoly even if TripAdvisor does. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2020 (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 using computer-generated imagery[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. MER-C 17:15, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: How would this really a defining trait in any way? ★Trekker (talk) 19:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, perhaps listify but only if someone would explicitly volunteer for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. El Millo (talk) 20:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename User:The Editor 155 There would not be much point in listing every single film which uses CGI, so it might be a better idea to change the name of the category to something along the lines of 'films with prominent use of CGI' or something like that, and then only include the films which use CGI heavily. It would be a useful category to have as CGI is an important and highly-discussed topic in the film industry, so I don't think the category should be deleted entirely.
Prominent/heavily is subjective. That it's an important topic is a reason for having an article about it and an article can do things that categories can't - e.g. identify the first film to use a particular CGI technique. DexDor (talk) 10:00, 24 October 2020 (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:Current Members of the House of Commons of Canada[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. For the record, over 20 countries (not only the UK) categorise Legislators by term, but it is apparent here that there is no plan to extend this to Canada. – Fayenatic London 21:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding consensus, we do not use the category system to distinguish "current" from "former" holders of the same job. People are not added to categories where membership is temporary, such that they will have to be pulled back out of the category in the future as soon as they die in office or resign or get defeated in an election -- people are only filed in categories where their membership is not transitory, where once they're in they stay in forever. We use lists such as List of House members of the 43rd Parliament of Canada, and/or templates such as {{Current Members of the Canadian House of Commons}}, not categories, to handle their "current" status in temporary matters such as political incumbency. Bearcat (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I think you are right. There is value in a past members category, but upon reflection it occurs to me that current members overlaps with the specific membership of the 43rd parliament. Keihatsu talk 19:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something like Category:Canadian MPs 2019-. The cognate on for UK is Category:UK MPs 2019– and the format should be followed. Such category names should be as short as possible as MPs often sit in successive Parliaments. In this case there may be a need to include something to make it clear that it refers to the Federal Parliament. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Canada does not categorize its MPs by individual session of Parliament that they happen to have sat in. We categorize our MPs by party and by province, but we use lists, not categories, to handle the sessional memberships. The UK really shouldn't be doing it either, because it defies our rules against overlapping categories and causes category bloat on any MP who serves for more than just one or two terms, but I digress — regardless of whether we want to tackle removing it from UK MPs or not, the fact that the UK has that (bad) practice does not automatically require Canada to do the same. The United States doesn't do it, Australia doesn't do it, and on and so forth, so why should Canada be forced to model ourselves after UK practices instead of other countries' practices? Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per alt above suggested by @Peterkingiron: Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I agree with Bearcat that there is no need to create a "by-Parliament" subdivision of Canadian parliamentarians. This is a system that has been adopted for the UK parliamentarians but has not become common in other parliamentarian categorization schemes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because this has been sitting for almost three months still unclosed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat (talk) 18:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. This is a longstanding consensus and would be a significant maintenance issue to maintain. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:01, 1 November 2020 (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:Aerospace agencies[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 (no merging was necessary as all the contents were already in Category:Space agencies, which is a sub-subcategory of Category:Aerospace organizations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only include space agencies that can be categorised at Category:Space agencies. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 17:20, 15 October 2020 (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:LGBT socialists[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. MER-C 17:54, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreations of more categories previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 14#LGBT people by political orientation. Unlike the neo-Nazis below, this has only previously been discussed once -- but like them, it's been long enough since the first discussion that retesting for whether consensus has changed or not is more appropriate than speedying. The fundamental issue remains the same, however: the prior consensus was that the intersection of sexual orientation with political affiliation is not a defining characteristic. LGBT people exhibit the exact same range of political opinions as everybody else, all the way across the political spectrum from "far left" to "far right" and every stop in between, and per WP:CATEGRS, the intersection is not encyclopedic in and of itself. The category system does not exist as a way to create lists of "people who happen to be both X and Y" for just any combination of X and Y that happens to describe two or more people -- we categorize people on their defining characteristics, not just any intersection of two not inherently related traits you can think of. Bearcat (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2020 (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:LGBT neo-Nazis[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. MER-C 17:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of a category that was deleted on three prior occasions, at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 12#Category:Gay Neo-Nazis, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 14#LGBT people by political orientation and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 27#LGBT neo-Nazis. Those discussions took place long enough ago that I don't feel comfortable just speedying them, and think it's more appropriate to test for whether consensus has changed or not -- but on both of the prior occasions, consensus was that the intersection of sexual orientation with political affiliation was not a defining characteristic. LGBT people exhibit the exact same range of political opinions as everybody else, all the way across the political spectrum from "far left" to "far right" and every stop in between, and per WP:CATEGRS the intersection is not encyclopedic in and of itself: if you cannot write a substantive article about LGBT neo-Nazism as a thing, then there's no value in categorizing people for the trivial intersection of two otherwise unrelated traits, and such an intersection isn't automatically special just because it seems surprising or unexpected. And furthermore, it's also highly prone to being used as a form of attack editing, such as to tendentiously label anybody whose views or statements are perceived as "neo-Nazi" without regard to whether the person actually identifies that way or not (Milo Yiannopoulos, obviously not to defend him or anything, is an example of the kind of person who might be vulnerable to that.) I'm also bundling its parent Category:LGBT right-wingers; although it's never been directly discussed by CFD before, it's subject to the same issues and will be empty if this is deleted as this is its only content. Bearcat (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not defining. How gay, or how right wing, would you have to be to qualify?Rathfelder (talk) 14:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, straightforward cases of WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while neo-Nazis maybe (just, maybe) objectively definable, "right-winger" isn't. So, one of these is subjective, the other may be, but both violate WP:OCEGRS. 01:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete their LGBTness is independent of their fascist leanings. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:42, 22 October 2020 (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:Nagorno-Karabakh War in fiction[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 as nominated, renaming can happen later. MER-C 18:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only content is Category:Nagorno-Karabakh War films, this seems unnecessary, and misleading, as those films are by no means all fiction. Rathfelder (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. But should war be plural? There has been more than 1 in recent years. The current "struggle" may soon be upgraded to a war. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it should be - though there isnt any easy definition of what constitutes a war. Rathfelder (talk) 22:57, 22 October 2020 (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:Featured pictures of Austria[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: purge. I have listed this at WP:CFDWM. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A great number of articles were added to this category that are not WP:Featured pictures on the English Wikipedia. I'd prefer to not do the purging with my main account. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:34, 15 October 2020 (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:International Hospitals in Uganda[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 17:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:14, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. We dont have any other categories for International Hospitals, whatever they might be. Rathfelder (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:45, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The one article does not make clear what is "international" about it making it different from others in Uganda. It alludes to another "international" hospital (in Kampala). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 18 October 2020 (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:App Features[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) 01:07, 6 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category creator clarifies on their talk page that this is for "articles which focuses mainly on the different types of features included in a app". Taken literally, this duplicates Category:Software features. Looking at the only article they put here (Pokémon GO Battle League, an additional play mode added to the Pokemon GO game some years after launch), it seems covered by Category:Video game downloadable content or Category:Video game expansion packs. Lord Belbury (talk) 09:43, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is how you say, Lord Belbury, why not merge it with Category:Software features?— Preceding unsigned comment added by WellThisIsTheReaper (talk • contribs)
I'm not sure how different a Merge is from a Delete in this case, but the only thing in this recently-created category is one article about extra content for a Pokemon game, which is not a software feature. --Lord Belbury (talk) 15:53, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is correct ("a feature in Pokémon GO which allows for competitive, online trainer battles) then it is a software feature, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds more like an expansion pack to me; Category:Software features seems more about the nuts and bolts of user profiles and like buttons. I don't think there's a single clear merge action here: app feature is certainly a synonym for software feature (so redirect it if that's what merging involves), but Pokemon Go Battle is not a type of software feature (so don't move that article to the software features category). --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2020 (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/2020_October_15&oldid=1073192717"