Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 7 August 9 >

August 8[edit]

Category:Twitch streamer stubs[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: moot. ✗plicit 12:50, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following Category:Twitch (service) streamers. L33tm4n (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2022 (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 Brittany[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Category:People from Brittany

Category:Aruban expatriates in the Netherlands[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Category:Aruban expatriates in the Netherlands

Category:Curaçao expatriates in the Netherlands[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Category:Curaçao expatriates in the Netherlands

Category:Dutch expatriates in Curaçao[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Category:Dutch expatriates in Curaçao

Category:Dolby Cinema 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: delete. ✗plicit 12:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whether or not a film is in Dolby Cinema format is not an essential or defining characteristic of the film. If an article happens to mention this format, it is usually in the context of a press release or a source reiterating that press release's details. Reviews and similar coverage do not mention it, unlike something like true IMAX format. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:47, 8 August 2022 (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:American women of Filipino descent in politics[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. ✗plicit 12:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This would match up with categories such as Category:21st-century American women politicians. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 07:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further clarification: I am opposing for now, for consistency, but would encourage a nomination of the whole tree in a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 16 August 2022 (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.

Punjabi cinema[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Punjabi cinema

Effect of tropical cyclones[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 17#Effect of tropical cyclones

Category:BBC 100 Women[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. – Fayenatic London 19:02, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete We have consistently found, most recently at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 3#Category:Time 100, that these categories based on published lists are WP:NOTDEFINING to the people categorized in them. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:20, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not based on nom. I'm not sure what this means - but this list is in a different class to "40 under 40" and other clickbait titles. The unveiling of this list attracts such invitees as Women in Red who devote edit time to sorting out the notable in the list from the (few) ephemeral. The BBC is reliable and it doesnt publish oodles of lists - I would define someone as "she was on the BBC 100 women list" and you will see this mentioned in articles and on wiki. Have a look at the edit histories of these women. Their articles are created because they are "defined" by this list. Victuallers (talk) 14:46, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The category usefully defines the subject as a recipient of a BBC100 listing. Great use is made of the category by those on WP who care for women biographies. The purpose of categories is to serve use cases & we should prioritise that over a fetish about the subjective notion of "non-defining". --Tagishsimon (talk) 15:17, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definingness is not a fetish, it is the primary criterion for the existence of categories. Besides for maintenance purposes there are already lists at 100 Women (BBC). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is essentially a list of people featured in a BBC broadcast programme series. Possibly listify, but the main article is largely a list. The people were probably selected by BBC as notable. They did not become notable by being featured. Not exactly a performance category but not too dissimilar. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow! there was a bbc programme? Can you send a link? I went to the event at the BBC but I never knew there was a TV programme. When was it broadcast? Can you add this extra detail to the Wikipedia aricle? Victuallers (talk) 22:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What links a scientist with a peace activist with a rapper? Nothing, save that they were listed as women of note in a BBC program. They are named in the article 100 Women (BBC) and time would be better spent seeing if some of the redlinks there shouldn't become blue. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh great you saw it too. This programme seems amazing. Tell us more! Oh and What links a scientist with a peace activist with a rapper? Could it be that they all French? Or they are all amputees? Or all medically trained? Are all these categories incorrect? Victuallers (talk) 22:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Victuallers. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, which is consistent with WP:OCAWARD and WP:OCLIST. Surely there are better ways to improve equal representation on Wikipedia than to keep non-defining categories about appearances in a media series that feature 100 people every year. JBchrch talk 20:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Tagishsimon Gamaliel (talk) 04:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CATDEF. If it was defining for the subject, then it should be mentioned in the lead of the article. Looking at several at random: Eleni Antoniadou mentioned briefly in the career sub-section, Chipo Chung not mentioned anywhere, Alicia Garza mentioned pretty near to the end of her bio, Scarlett Curtis no mention, Nadia Comăneci no mention, Lucy Finch at the end of her bio, Jane Fonda right at the end of the article in the very last bit of awards & honours, Gurinder Chadha no mention. Those were literally the first ones I checked, and at best the info is a brief mention buried deep in the article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOPTEN. What makes this list especially relevant to most of its recipients? It seems to have a very large amount of entries every year, and the criteria isn't mentioned anywhere. And it is clearly not as famous as the Fortune 500 and Time 100, whose categories have been similarly deleted. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:44, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I share the opinions of both Tagishsimon and Victuallers but would also point out that these mainly young enterprising individuals are selected for the impact they have made, often in countries which receive little attention. I am not aware of any TV programmes but can confirm that most, if not all, have been featured on radio broadcasts of the BBC World Service, in addition to fairly detailed background on the BBC's website. The category appears to me to have much in common with the many categories we have in relation to awards.--Ipigott (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the BBC is a highly regarded broadcasting organisation, and its 100 Women list is drawn from women who have been in the news across the World Service for their roles in society, please see: "...candidates who had made the headlines or influenced important stories over the past 12 months, as well as those who have inspiring stories to tell, achieved something significant or influenced their societies in ways that wouldn't necessarily make the news." So to answer the question about commonality, it is that the recipients of the listing are all women who have influenced societal issues in their countries of origin, and subsequently have had measurable impact around the world. This article mentions the importance of 100 Women to the representation of women on Wikipedia. Lajmmoore (talk) 13:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your argument, is not about the notability of the members of the cat, but the claim, and by all those supporting keep, that there should be a category scheme, "People mentioned by broadcaster." Because that is what you are supporting. How about Presidents mentioned on Fox News? Or musicians mentioned on MTV? Cartoon characters on Disney Channel? Because voting! keep here makes that a possibility with WP:CATDEF being totally ignored. Richhoncho (talk) 16:25, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing differentiating this category from the Category:The X Factor (British TV series) contestants and their ilk here on enwp if we are going down "this is nothing but a whole list of people who appeared on a BBC programme", etc. route. The main article should be imo broken down by year and individual articles created for each one as that would allow us to go more in depth as to why these people were chosen and make it more consistent with other award articles. -Yupik (talk) 21:24, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The entries already exist in a list, so why have a WP:TOPTEN-skirting category that isn't defining? Why this list and not the far more famous Time 100 or Forbes 100 Most Powerful Women or any other ranking of people whose only unifying characteristic is "being chosen for a "top people" list in [year]"? And why not turn it into a projectspace category if it's really needed for article creation, like we do for edit-a-thons? Also, in the list page, how does reproducing the list for each year not constitute a copyright violation? Revisions reproducing the Time 100 list were revdeled and a restriction to including only the top 10 was imposed. This is an identical situation to the list article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, clearly is non-defining, per WP:OCLIST and WP:TOPTEN. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 16 August 2022 (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:Songs about seasons[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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:15, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These songs are about something that happened/was imagined to have happened one season, not about THE season. Many of the articles are silent about what the lyrics are about. Please see similar discussions which resulted in delete, CfD for Songs about days and CfD for songs about months Richhoncho (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 8 August 2022 (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:Hama 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. ✗plicit 12:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:49, 8 August 2022 (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:Lists of Disney television series episodes[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: split as per Marcocapelle. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's rationale: I think this category needs to be "Disney Channel-related lists," as the network has its established brand distinct from other Disney units (similar to Nickelodeon and Cartoon Network). It seems redundant to "Lists of Disney Channel television series episodes‎" and "Television series by Disney." Most shows listed fall within Disney Branded Television (formerly Disney Channels Worldwide) either way. (talk) 17:17, 15 July 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MegaSmike46 (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Procedural comment, this nomination was added the 23rd of July rather than the 20th. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all of it seems to be Disney Channel-related. There is also e.g. List of Disney XD TV channels. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: This is part comment, part opposition, but not only does it not specifically only cover Disney Channel but this user appears to have added non-episode-related pages (like the aforementioned Disney XD one) to the category in an attempt to change its scope before requesting this change. (The following is more comment than explanation of opposition.) They tried to speedy rename this and a few other categories a few times (without creating an entry or explaining why, so the only way people could easily oppose it was to revert the incomplete speedy edit) before doing an incomplete attempt at full discussion on several pages (only placing the template, not creating the discussion, similar to the issue with the speedies) before finally getting the hang of it and making this CFD discussion. I have a hypothesis that all the dating is off from when it was actually posted here because perhaps they posted about it somewhere else and are copying that explanation of their reasoning? - Purplewowies (talk) 22:24, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: To me this appears to represent a scope change, and I'm not aware that there was any discussion with any WikiProjects that might have a stake in this kind of change. As Purple noted above, this editor has made other dubious category-related edits that make me concerned that they don't have a good understanding of how categorization works, and as such, I can't support their efforts to change categories without any indication that they're speaking from an informed position. If and when editors with experience working on Disney-related articles come forward supporting this change, I'll reconsider my position, but at this time I feel Mega needs to focus more on collaborating with their fellow editors rather than striking out on their own in this manner. DonIago (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split instead to the target name, as most of the current contents are lists of program(me)s on Disney Channel. – Fayenatic London 20:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support split, there is enough content for a separate Disney Channel category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:47, 8 August 2022 (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:Ballpoint pen art[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Category:Ballpoint pen art

Engineer of the Russian Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Engineer of the Russian Empire

Artists of the Russian Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Artists of the Russian Empire

Models of the Russian Empire[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Models of the Russian Empire

Category:Railway stations served by Crossrail[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Crossrail is not the company serving these stations, and all stations are served on the Elizabeth line, which stems from the Crossrail project. Jalen Folf (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:11, 8 August 2022 (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:Songs written by Sin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Category:Songs written by Sin

Category:Song recordings produced by Sin[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Category:Song recordings produced by Sin

Category:Nakhchivan-Maragha school of architecture[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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to be a term that only appears in Soviet/Azerbaijani historiography, i.e. historiography loaded with historic negationism vis-a-vis the history of the region (see also; Historical negationism#Azerbaijan, Media freedom in Azerbaijan, Human rights in Azerbaijan, Human rights in the Soviet Union). - LouisAragon (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per argument. --HistoryofIran (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep LouisAragon The Nakhchivan-Maraga school of architecture was created in the era of Eldiguzids. And at that time, Nakhchivan and Maraga were part of the same state. Of course, it is normal that such an architecture exists in these regions. It's just the name of an architectural school. No territorial claims. In Iranian architecture, the Arg of Tabriz, Dome of Soltaniyeh and Red tomb located in Maragha belong to the Azerbaijani architecture. Iranian researchers also confirm this. --Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 06:45, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There's not a single WP:RS out there which defines and demarcates a "Nakhchivan-Maragha school of architecture", hence this category does not belong on Wikipedia.
  • "It's just the name of an architectural school. No territorial claims. In Iranian architecture, the Arg of Tabriz, Dome of Soltaniyeh and Red tomb located in Maragha belong to the Azerbaijani architecture."
Regardless of whether some local architects from modern Iran defined this as "Azari" or "Azarbayjani" or not (referring to Iran's own Azerbaijan region), you know very well that when you feed this category in Category:Architectural schools of Azerbaijan (which in turn feeds into Category:Architecture of Azerbaijan), the intention is to connect it to the post-Soviet Republic of Azerbaijan (the territory of which was not known as Azerbaijan at the time) and to detach it from Iran. Its like calling Byzantine architecture in North Macedonia "North Macedonian architecture". Thanks for confirming my earlier concerns about negationism though. - LouisAragon (talk) 14:57, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, none of the articles in the category mentions the school. Of course that might be just a shortcoming of the articles but if that this is not the case the category may be deleted per WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up nomination see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_20#Category:Shirvan-Absheron_Architecture_School. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially keep -- These are medieval architectural styles. The difficulty with this and Shirvan-Absheron Architecture School is the lack of a main article for the category, explaining what the architectural style consists of. If this is in fact a branch of Persian architecture (I avoid saying Iranian as that refers to another modern state), we should merge to the relevant medieval Persian category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nominator's rationale.---Wikaviani (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin note: The related CFDs for the only sibling and parent have been closed as Delete & Merge. – Fayenatic London 06:23, 10 August 2022 (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:Filmed deaths[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. – Fayenatic London 18:51, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the outcome of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_1#Category:Filmed_accidental_deaths, I reiterate my statement that most modern major incidents are caught on camera, and that this is not a defining trait of the category members. Some entries are neither biographies nor specifically about deaths. Pages should be upmerged to other categories, where applicable. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I highly dispute that most major incidents are filmed. Where's the proof in that? How would most suicides be filmed, unless the suicider filmed it themselves, which many wouldn't do. Similarly, why would most killings be filmed? Many people would be busy killing or trying to avoid being killed, to participate in filming their own incidents. Most serial killers certainly don't seem to film their kills. As for third party filming, where are the cameras in the middle of the jungle? There's no evidence that the Murdaugh murders were filmed and they were recent and high profile. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Manually merge per Marcocapelle --Koltinn (talk) 10:23, 01 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Per Lugnuts' arguments SuperSkaterDude45 (talk) 05:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I usually prefer Wikipedia's death-related categories, when it comes to cause of death and place of burial. But whether a death was recorded on camera or not is typically no more than a trivial aspect of the relevant article. We live in the era of closed-circuit television, and recordings of deaths and violence have become commonplace. But the recording often has no impact on the event or its consequences. Dimadick (talk) 06:42, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CATDEF, I am trying to find a reason why, for example, the filming of the shooting of JFK, was defining of that event. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:13, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The fact that an incident happened to be captured on film doesn't define the incident differently than a virtually identical incident that failed to be captured on film. The category system does not exist as a way to create lists of every possible criterion you can think of that describes two or more topics — we categorize topics by their defining characteristics, and not by what's fundamentally just WP:TRIVIA. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The whole point of the category system is to be able to find things, not an ivory-tower exercise of no particular point, a self-licking ice cream cone type deal. 'Filmed deaths in motorsport' is somewhat ghoulish, and un-worthy for that reason.. but: does it have a use? I came here because I was looking for a racing driver killed driving, whose name I couldn't remember - and ran across this debate while so doing. I wasn't being a ghoul, I was looking for something - and that category was helping. Noel (talk) 20:21, 16 August 2022 (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:Filmed landslides[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 12:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mose modern incidents are filmed, not a defining characteristic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category is based on a trivial characteristic. Merging is not needed, the articles are already in a landslides by country category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion --Lenticel (talk) 02:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I dispute that most landslides are filmed. Most landslides happen outside of human observation, so are certainly not filmed. Even incidents that happen inside of human environments, many of those that happen at night are not filmed or not visibly so, as the film shows nothing -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:53, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete A recording has no major impact on a landslide's consequences. Dimadick (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2022 (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:Filmed police brutality[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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:45, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most modern incidents are filmed, not a defining characteristic. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:31, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, category is based on a trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would dispute that "most" modern incidents are filmed. I would say that most are not filmed at all. Whether the bodycam is off or malfunctioning, or there is no bodycam, or the interrogation room filming is turned off, or it happens in an unmonitored van, it is many times not filmed at all. If there is no third party, the first party frequently is unable to film it. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 04:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:42, 8 August 2022 (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:Albanians in Montenegro[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 16#Category:Albanians in Montenegro

Category:Legacy sequels[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 11:46, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trait. The listed definition also disagrees with Sequel, which states 20 years, not 10. This also appears to be a film specific term, but the category is full of video games and comics as well, industries that do not, to my knowledge, ever use the term. -- ferret (talk) 13:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- The listed definition can easily be fixed, I believe it is WP:DEFINING, and even if other industries do not use the term, the term still makes sense when applied (also there are plenty of film entries anyway). Also, Sequel needs more non-film examples anyway. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You believe this is something commonly and consistently used in reference to these topics? I don't believe that's the case even for the films. A quick review found none of them to mention the term in their prose. Very defining. -- ferret (talk) 21:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Regardless of whether 10, 15, or 20 years is picked, it's an arbitrary divide. Per suggestion at arbitrary cat rule, if there's a desire to represent this information, make a list article like "List of film sequels by time since previous entry" that can show that Tron Legacy came out 28 years after Tron and the like. (Canvassing disclaimer: knew about this due to a mention on Discord - as did the above vote, I suspect.) SnowFire (talk) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - sorry for not mentioning that, yes, I did also hear it through Discord. (Oinkers42) (talk) 20:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I agree, however, I read it being used on numerous different news sites. It seems to bee a term that wikipedia-notable sources have been using hence why I made the category.Americanfreedom (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Americanfreedom: I'm sure it was made in good faith, just I'm not sure a category is the right approach here - if notable sources describe it as such, great, but that can be normal article content rather than categories. Maybe, per my above comment, using the current entries to start a List of sequels by time since previous entry, and tag it with "incomplete list"? Then make List of legacy sequels redirect to that new article. SnowFire (talk) 02:24, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, any cutoff is too arbitrary. A list will serve the purpose better. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2022 (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:Micrococcineae[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: manual rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:48, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The suborder Micrococcineae is no longer in common use. The family Micrococcaceae encompasses the same genera as the obsolete Micrococcineae. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2022 (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/2022_August_8&oldid=1109731528"