Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 8

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

February 8[edit]

Category:History of Hanukkah[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. – Fayenatic London 16:11, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with just one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support A revolt should not categorized as part of a holiday. Dimadick (talk) 04:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it is WP:N. IZAK (talk) 03:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not relevant here. Every article is WP:N but not every article has an eponymous category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think you can improve the content of the category, just give it a go. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 23:56, 8 February 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.

Psychiatric instruments[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 as follows:

– Fayenatic London 22:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: rename, the current category names are awkward for two reasons: 1/ they miss the fact that the tests in the categories are used for detection and diagnosis, and 2/ they wrongly suggest the tests can only be used by psychiatrists, while in reality clinical psychologists use the tests as well (or occasionally by GPs or used as self-test). I am open to alternative phrasings, as long as they address the two mentioned concerns regarding the current names. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would probably be advisable to notify WT:MED.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 23:55, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

⇾ Details: I agree that renames are in order for the two well-articulated reasons given by the nominator. (As an aside, psychologists developed a substantial majority of the instruments.)
Marcocapelle also mentions an important distinction among these measures: "the tests ... are used for detection and diagnosis" (emphasis added).
Screening tests identify (detect) more likely cases (probable positives). In more technical terms, screening tests rule out unlikely cases (true negatives) in order to devote resources to finding true positives via more thorough assessment methods.
Assessment tools yield more definitive conclusions and are therefore sometimes called "diagnostic tests".
Ideally, we would have two related categories, one for screening tests and the other for assessment tools, but that is probably not feasible at this juncture. I therefore suggest, "[Condition] screening and assessment tools".
⇾ Notes: I recommend against the adjective, "diagnostic" because it applies to only some of the instruments and would be inaccurate for the others. (Screening tests should not be used to diagnose, although it is a common mistake.)
I recommend against the term "procedures". A procedure is "a series of steps taken to accomplish an end".[1] An assessment protocol often includes an assessment tool, e.g., a semi-structured diagnostic interview, but additional evaluative methods constitute the assessment procedure in its entirety.
I conducted a number of searches with Google Books Ngram Viewer and Google Scholar to ascertain the most common terms among the following possibilities: instruments, measures, methods, scales, tests, and tools. A more thorough analysis could be conducted, but my relatively brief investigation suggested the most common terms are screening tests and assessment tools. Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/him] 22:47, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Your suggestion "[Condition] screening and assessment tools" sounds completely reasonable to me. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, screening and assessment tools makes sense. --Xurizuri (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Really a better solution. --Just N. (talk) 16:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ American Heritage Dictionary
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:Organizations associated with effective altruism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 14#Category:Organizations associated with effective altruism

Category:Impact event video 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: rename to Category:Video games about impact events. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:NONDEF. I don't think almost any of these games are specifically about impact events, besides maybe Majora's Mask. There are too few actually defining games to make a category right now. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:43, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's see...
  • In Chrono Trigger, the main antagonist, the alien Lavos, impacts with the planet, burrowing deep to devour the planet from the inside, then gives birth to larvae who will leave the dying planet to find new planets to devour. Lavos' impact is a major event during the 65 million B.C. portion of the story, ushering in a series of ice ages leading to 12000 B.C. Impact events very much qualify on the chapter level.
  • In E.V.O.: The Search for Eden, the planet is bombarded by meteors at the end of the Age of the Dinosaurs chapter of the story.
  • In Final Fantasy VII, Sephiroth uses the Black Materia to cast the magic spell Meteor, whose ominous presence in orbit dominates the last part of the story, with an effort to stop the impact from destroying the planet. The impact event is a major part of the story and even forms part of the title's logo.
  • In Mega Man X5, you play in a race against the clock to prevent the colony drop of the Eurasia orbiting colony as its orbit decays. Though this is a preventable scenario in the game, its impact is a canon event in the backstory of Mega Man X6. Very much qualifies as an impact event story.
  • In Metroid Fusion, the entire game takes place aboard a space station built into an asteroid orbiting the planet SR388. At the end of the story, in order to destroy the rampaging X parasite, Samus is forced to set the station on a collision course with the planet while under a self-destruct countdown, so that the combined impact and explosion will destroy the X-infested biospheres on both planet and station. That seems to qualify.
  • In Phantasy Star II, a major part of the plot has a satellite colliding with the planet Palma, homeworld of the series' Palman race of people, and killing every living thing on the planet.
  • In Xenogears, the game story starts with the Eldridge, a interstellar megastructure colony ship, breaking up into multiple pieces and impacting the planet that would become the few survivors' new home. Individual pieces of the disintegrated ship left massive craters on the landscape that are still there 10000 years later.
The question is, how do we determine whether a game is about an impact event or not? If it forms a major part of the plotline, I'd say it qualifies.
So...Keep. - Gilgamesh (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having". Chrono Trigger is "about" a group of friends that time-travel to stop a world-ending threat, not about an impact event, although Lavos' impact affects its setting. Ultimately, Lavos itself is far more of a danger than the impact it causes. E.V.O. is about trying to enter Eden. Metroid Fusion is about attempting to stop the X-Parasites on the BSL, and while it ultimately impacts the planet below, that would not be defining, just something that happens in the story. In contrast, Deep Impact (film) is quite literally about a meteor impact and its effects. I would obviously change my mind about a merge if the non-defining games were removed and enough defining ones could be found to actually fill a video game category. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 02:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All right, so that means, besides Majora's Mask, we could keep...Final Fantasy VII and Mega Man X5, at the very least, since impact events are a huge part of their plots. - Gilgamesh (talk) 03:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The impact event article is pretty much entirely about natural objects colliding so whether it concerns an artificial space station is also unclear, therefore Mega Man X5 may not even qualify. And even if it's a major part of FF7, it's not about that for the majority of the game, and wouldn't be described as a game about an impact event. So far there are just too few articles convincingly about the topic yet. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:37, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully but firmly disagree. An impact event is an impact event, whether the object is natural or artificial. And Final Fantasy VII's impact event may not have been a concern for most of the story, but was central to the story's climactic ending. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Video games about impact events and do the same for its parent and siblings, then purge any entries where an impact event is insignificant to the plot. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:32, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: That sounds reasonable. Most of these games do have impact events as part of the plot. - Gilgamesh (talk) 17:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The nominator's proposal makes no sense. Keep or eventually rename per Laundry (more good reasons needed). I'm still not convinced about the necessity. --Just N. (talk) 16:20, 15 February 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:Futuristic shooting 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: rename. – Fayenatic London 16:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More obvious cross-categorization between Category:Shooter video games and Category:Science fiction video games. Also a bit more clear ("futuristic" can also mean modern things that seem like they belong in the future). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:36, 8 February 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:Futuristic racing 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: rename. – Fayenatic London 16:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More obvious cross-categorization between Category:Racing games and Category:Science fiction video games. Also a bit more clear ("futuristic" can also mean modern cars that look like they belong in the future, like the Cybertruck). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:25, 8 February 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:Defunct American Association (19th century) baseball teams[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. – Fayenatic London 16:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Consistency with main article's name. Article was renamed from American Association (19th century) to American Association (1882–1891). Category:American Association (1882–1891) standings templates already re-named. Bison X (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. After renaming, might want to also create Category:American Association (1882–1891) for this league. Waz8:T-C-E 18:19, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presuming this will happen without objection, I created my suggested category. Waz8:T-C-E 01:09, 13 February 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:Gay journalists[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 07:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory of Category:LGBT journalists, on a criterion that isn't useful or WP:DEFINING. As always, WikiProject LGBT and CFD have a longstanding consensus that we do not always want every LGBT-related category to be comprehensively chopped up into separate lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender subcategories as a matter of course -- this is warranted only when a common LGBT parent category would be too large and needs subcategorization for size management purposes. But in this case the parent category is already well-diffused by nationality, and doesn't need to be drawn and quartered into four L/G/B/T subcategories. Upmerging not needed, as the just three people who have been filed here so far are all already in the appropriate "LGBT journalists from [Country]" categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems like an argument that could just as easily be used to argue for the deletion of any of the subcats of Category:Gay men by occupation. The primary goal of the categorization system is to facilitate navigation. It is totally conceivable to me that a reader might be interested in navigating the set of articles about gay journalists specifically (or e.g. transgender journalists). Deleting this category would foreclose that option to readers. Colin M (talk) 20:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not an argument that "could just as easily be used to argue for the deletion of any of the subcats of Category:Gay men by occupation" — but for this, every single subcategory of that category fulfills the "only when a common LGBT parent category would be too large and needs subcategorization for size management purposes" test, so absolutely none of them fail the necessary criteria at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But any of those could instead by subcategorized as "LGBT [X] from [Country]" rather than "Gay [X]". Colin M (talk) 17:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (something which probably should be done with the whole category tree) per WP:OCEGRS. There is no indication of how specifically being gay is a relevent characteristic by which journalists can be divided (is there a difference between gay- and not-gay-journalists?); or how "gay people who are journalists" is a notable intersection. Maybe in a few cases where journalist has been persecuted because of their sexual orientation (although here again, this would then be a sub-category of whatever the appropriate category for that is); and maybe more plausibly for the current title a few (hypothetical?) cases where the journalist is specifically known for the reporting on LGBT issues, but in that case that would need a whole new category scheme. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:26, 15 February 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:Defunct LGBT nightclubs in the United States[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 22:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that the so-called smallcat exception rule does not apply, since this is an underdeveloped tree altogether. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This nomination of the whole category tree is connected with this previous discussion that previously only nominated the North Carolina category. bibliomaniac15 18:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. We don't typically distinguish between former and current entities in drinking establishments. Dimadick (talk) 04:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Except that the nomination does not consider that since it suggests deleting some, but keeping other state categories.Djflem (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 18:01, 8 February 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:Fires 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Created "Fires in fiction" without knowing that "Fire in fiction" existed (it was not already a subcategory of "Fiction about disasters", which led me to falsely believe that such a category did not yet exist. SecretName101 (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SecretName101: A discussion is not necessary if you created it. You are entitled to delete it by WP:G7, simply place the banner there and wait for someone to get rid of it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:27, 8 February 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:Skyscraper fires[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:High-rise fires. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inclusive of more content, better emcompassing whole topic. Not all high-rises are easily considered skyscrapers, but all skyscrapers are easily considered high-rises. SecretName101 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per recent move, although this could have been done with WP:C2D instead without requiring a discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:30, 8 February 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:Ahab[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Category:Ahab

Category:Ahasuerus[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Category:Ahasuerus

Category:Bathsheba[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 18#Category:Bathsheba

Category:Indoor arenas logos[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 16#Category:Indoor arenas logos

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_February_8&oldid=1077120220"