Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 31 August 2 >

August 1[edit]

Category:Negative concepts[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. bibliomaniac15 22:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains some coherent clumps of related topics, such as negative number-related topics, but has largely become a WP:SHAREDNAME of various things called "negative X" — for example, Negative space is an artistic technique. About one-third of the contents are redirects that specifically contain the word (e.g. Negative proton → Antiproton). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:57, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category is populated with an entirely unrelated set of articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep same reasons as dark concepts right below it. I'm somewhat fascinated by negative concepts so that made me to create category and added pages to it. PlanetStar 03:05, 12 August 2021 (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:Dark concepts[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 Category:Dark concepts, no consensus for Category:Dark concepts in astrophysics. bibliomaniac15 22:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparent WP:SHAREDNAME — this category includes everything from Dark chocolate to Category:Dark web. Its subcategory is a bit more coherent, but it may fail SHAREDNAME as well. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:39, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definite delete of the parent cat... I'm not versed enough in astrophysics to comment on the second. Grutness...wha? 03:09, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Dark concepts, the category is populated with an entirely unrelated set of articles. Like Grutness I am not sure about the second category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them both For those interested in "dark" topics, they can quickly jump around via category. I'm the one that created those categories and spent time adding category to numerous pages that start with "dark". PlanetStar 02:59, 12 August 2021 (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:UE Llagostera[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 all. The footballers category will be renamed to players, since it is not a multi-sport club. bibliomaniac15 05:11, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Club changed name. BRDude70 (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 10:51, 3 August 2021 (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:Newspapers reestablished in 1945[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) 16:59, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:37, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Editor's rationale: Separation of the categories about the establishment years of newspapers from those of publications has not been completed. So, these categories would have more entities soon. Similar categories have been used for magazines, so these categories are also appropriate for newspapers to report the reality in much clearer way, thanks, --Egeymi (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - there are more of these than one might think, given the absence of Category:Reestablishments (as opposed to the presence of Category:Establishments and Category:Disestablishments). Perhaps there should also be Category:Redisestablishments. My own view is that all the reestablishments should be upmerged to establishments: Waren Sardne is simply in 2 disestablishment years and can readily sit in 2 establishment categories, having been established twice. Oculi (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We do this for musical groups. We should not mix being relaunched with being initially established.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We don't have a wide categorization scheme for re-established entities. Even if we had, I doubt that we could populate it properly. Several articles are still missing any category involving their years of establishment, since few editors seem to be working on them. Dimadick (talk) 00:12, 7 August 2021 (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:Newspapers reestablished in 1922[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) 17:01, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, regardless of the number of entries. Oculi (talk) 23:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I think this a poorly-thought categorization scheme. Dimadick (talk) 00:14, 7 August 2021 (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:Disney+ series ID not in Wikidata[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 9#Category:Disney+ series ID not in Wikidata

Category:Disney+ series ID different from Wikidata[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 9#Category:Disney+ series ID different from Wikidata

Category:Animated western (genre) 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: rename all. bibliomaniac15 05:13, 5 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency of naming within Category:Western (genre) films by genre. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename To make it cleaer that this is Western (genre) films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is really a needed rename, since Western animation is sometimes used as a term in contrast to anime, which is not at all what we are talking about here. In theory, if we had an anime film that fell under the Western (genre) it would belong here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:32, 10 August 2021 (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:Erie BayHawks (2019–) players[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:Erie BayHawks (2019–21) players. bibliomaniac15 17:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Erie BayHawks (2008–2017) players Category:Erie BayHawks (2017–19) players 寒吉 (talk) 11:55, 1 August 2021 (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:Erie BayHawks (2019–) coaches[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:Erie BayHawks (2019–21) coaches. bibliomaniac15 17:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Erie BayHawks (2008–2017) coaches Category:Erie BayHawks (2017–19) coaches 寒吉 (talk) 11:53, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question same as in the above nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 9 August 2021 (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:Erie BayHawks (2019–)[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:Erie BayHawks (2019–21). bibliomaniac15 17:42, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Erie BayHawks (2008–2017) Category:Erie BayHawks (2017–19) 寒吉 (talk) 11:51, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and question same as in the above nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 9 August 2021 (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:2017 in the Republic of Macedonia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 6#Category:2017 in the Republic of Macedonia

Competitions by city[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 and delete as nominated. ✗plicit 11:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category tree, most of the nominated categories just have one (sport competitions) subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2021 (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:Nintendo hard 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. bibliomaniac15 22:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, WP:NONDEFINING. A critic may use the Nintendo hard term to describe a game they find hard, but that doesn't make it an indisputable, encyclopedic fact. Most of the pages in this category do not even mention the games being "Nintendo hard". See the similar "Shovelware video games" discussion from January. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I considered raising this issue at TV Tropes about the Nintendo Hard entry... –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The term itself covers games that were nearly impossible to complete for the average player. Such criticisms should be covered in an article's main text, but are not particularly useful for categorization purposes. It is an audience reaction, not an intended aspect of the game. We could create lists for unreadable books and unwatchable films using the same logic. There are parts of the audience that either can not comprehend them or dislikes aspects of them, but that does not mean that a work is universally loathed. Dimadick (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2021 (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.

Wikipedians by defunct WikiProject[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. ✗plicit 06:41, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per numerous past discussions, Wikipedians are not categorized by their participation in now-defunct projects. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:48, 1 August 2021 (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/2021_August_1&oldid=1123483992"