Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 25 October 27 >

October 26[edit]

Category:Lennon 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: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category with nothing but redirects for songs that all redirect to the same album. At the very least, if kept, category should be renamed to Category:Lennon Murphy songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - not sure why these particular songs have been selected (none have articles or info beyond their title in the album 5:30 Saturday Morning) leaving the intriguing Property of Goatfucker out altogether. Oculi (talk) 18:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not needed, as they're all just redirects to the album (which itself is in a category of one article). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not needed just to hold redirects that all lead to the same album anyway. If she had at least four or five songs with standalone articles, then fine, but not just for redirects. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. And if there is ever a reason to restore, it should be as Lennon Murphy songs, as per nom. Rlendog (talk) 15:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- All 5 songs are redirects to the same article. We should not categorise such redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing but redirects! --Just N. (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just reflecting about this absurd setting as revealed by nominator. Nevertheless, couldn't there emerge indeed another solution: a redesigned Category:Lennon songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) which would contain only real song articles? --Just N. (talk) 21:33, 2 November 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.

The Far Side of the Leith[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 and instead do Option B, i.e. rename Category:Lands of Transleithania (1867—1918) to Category:Lands of the Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918), and merge Category:Transleithania (1867—1918) to Category:Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918). The Transleithania categories are not tagged but have been recently created by the nominator, so there is no need to tag them and relist this. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Need to have a single name for this territory. Option A Rename & delete as nominated. Option B Reverse name all Transleithanian categories to "Foo in Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918)". Option C Rename & delete per parent Category:Transleithania (1867—1918), though personally I don't think that Transleithania needs disambigution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Transleithania is not Hungary. That's the whole point. Hungary was only a part of Transleithania. It's an uncommon, but very real thing. If you want, use option B - "Kingdom of Hungary (1867–1918)". I'm fine with either of them. Hungary on its own is not an option. Austria-Hungary on its own is not an option. Both were different legal and constitutional entities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Transleithania is an obscure term that I have never heard used. I do not think there was any change in boundaries in 1867, only in constitution, so that we should not have a barrier at that date. I am also not sure that 1918 is a correct termination since the peace treaties were not completed that year, only a couple of years later. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Transleithania is an obscure term that I have never heard used. Option B is probably more appropriate. --Just N. (talk) 21:39, 2 November 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.

This Side of the Leith[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 4#This Side of the Leith

Category:Objects[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. bibliomaniac15 04:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: downmerge with redirect, the key property of an object is that it is physical, so the difference between the two categories is unclear. Possibly the names of the subcategories should have "physical" too, that can be discussed in a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and redirect per nom. I think the category is superfluous and Objects, as a word by itself, is an ambiguous title. Its sole article, Object (philosophy), is already a member of the target category. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: The key property of an object is not that it is physical, at least not within academic philosophy. Abstract/platonic objects are essentially by definition, not physical objects. However, a category of just "objects" seems unhelpful for WP categorization so I don't think this is a bad idea. Alduin2000 (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is a difficult one! Some of the subcategories are not physical! And that's definitely beyond everyday life's experience that nominator and the above two voters are prefering obviously. We would need philosophers to approve of Category:Objects ? --Just N. (talk) 21:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nominator's target is not realistic! See above. --Just N. (talk) 21:52, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As stated at previous nomination Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_18#Category:Objects, it's probably useful to keep the more general parent over Hypothetical and Nonexistent things. – Fayenatic London 11:30, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment objects are not only physical. object oriented programming uses logical software objects, that are philosophically objects, but not physical. The category contains "holes" which are not physical objects, but the lack of a physical presence. The category also contains non-physical objects, such as philosophical objects known as fictional objects, and metaphorical objects, etc. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:35, 6 November 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:Wikipedians who support transgender rights[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. – Fayenatic London 07:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate support/oppose user category * Pppery * it has begun... 01:57, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Well, I support LGBT rights myself, but this category is pointless. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:29, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I support LGBT lefts. Now we have to wait for the ambidextrous supporters to be heard from....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and what about LGBT double-hand-amputees? Don't they have rights too? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No Great Shaker (talk) 12:55, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure this is funny because transgenders are one of the four main branches of LGBT, with partly other legal issues than LGB, so it does not concern a trivial intersection. As a category, it is of course an advocacy category, so delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 27 October 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 individual person[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) 04:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Individual person or people. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:34, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete all per nom. These personal likes and dislikes categories are pointless. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:31, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nomination, ill-advised categorization. Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:58, 2 November 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:Wikipedians who like Football[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.– Fayenatic London 11:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category, as currently worded, expressly distinguishes itself from Category:Wikipedians interested in association football (which has a plausible collaborative purpose), making it clear that this category has no collaborative value. I would also be okay with merging into that category, but would weakly prefer deletion on the grounds that the name of this one does not imply a Wikipedia-relevant interest. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. The rationale is spot on because it is human nature to like something without being interested in it, but to categorise people on that basis has no purpose. Likes and dislikes categories of any kind are subjective and potentially ephemeral. Being interested states a purpose and categorisation on that basis is objective and potentially permanent. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as duplicate of Category:Wikipedians interested in association football that is more ambiguous (as football is an ambiguous term) and incorrectly capitalised. Don't need both, so keep the one that complies with Wikipedia's standards. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:58, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No collaborative value! --Just N. (talk) 21:59, 2 November 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_October_26&oldid=1059718254"