Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 20 October 22 >

October 21[edit]

Category:Head Masters of Eton College educated at Eton[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 29#Category:Head Masters of Eton College educated at Eton

Category:Canadian Queen's Counsel[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 10:34, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 22#Category:Queen's Counsel. --Ferien (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support -- I assume the same change has been made in Canada as in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • support -- Per discussion quoted above. Atchom (talk) 03:09, 29 October 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:17th-century British literature[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 10:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No actual content Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 21 October 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:17th-century British 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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:36, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Great Britain did not exist until 1707. Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Great Britain has existed for millennia. Oculi (talk) 20:45, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Great Britain is an island (physical geography), not a country (political geography). I think people are categorized by political geography, not physical geography. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. At the same time it is perfectly fine to split topics in physical geography by island. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This a harmless container for England, Wales and Scotland, all of which had the same king from 1603. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Ireland had the same king too, so that isn't a proper criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This is the tyranny of demonyms that allow us to elide whether we are talking about an island or a state or a nation. Dangerous. Needs to be stamped out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:29, 27 October 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:Video games by game engine[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/weak keep. I doubt any further discussion will give clearer consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:57, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:

NOTE that there’s also a discussion on deleting the list articles of games by engine:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CryEngine games — Preceding unsigned comment added by Respiciens (talk • contribs) 13:21, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Short description: this is a deletion nomination of Category:Video games by game engine, all it’s direct subcategories, and two second level subcategories (1, 2) which don’t have other parents.

Last year Category:Unity (game engine) games was deleted after this nomination. The discussion and the closing statement of that nomination said that it’s procedurally logical to follow with nominating its parent category and other subcategories. Currently only Unity engine doesn’t have a subcategory there, and that’s confusing. I previously discussed this in video games project and with the nominator of Unity category.

I propose several exceptions:

--Respiciens (talk) 09:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per proposal; all these categories are not defining (WP:NONDEF), as explained in the Unity nomination linked to above.
Sandstein 10:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Games are almost never known by what engine is used to make them; it is in most cases simply a matter of technical interest for game developers and modders. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:08, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Category:Flash games. It's not just an engine it's a platform, a historic one, and is defining for most or all such games. See e.g. the introductory sentences to Abobo's Big Adventure or Achievement Unlocked. delete the rest unless there's a reason other than it being an engine.86.158.249.155 (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventual Delete, but at the moment it's needed for gathering together the other multitudinous engine categories. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but eventually delete if someone can a substitute system working) - only as I was pinged into this, and generally do not have much interest in this topic. To be honest I do not buy the WP:NONDEF argument above, as the Carvaggio example in the docs does not directly translate - every article about him doesn't mention he is Italian. WP has also set a precedent by allowing all sorts of categories that are odd, but are useful for readers to find out about related topics. From the exceptions posted by OP, I cannot see why these categories are any more worthy of keep status than the proposed deletes. Some of the proposed categories have multiple pages :- there must be some merit to the category in this case. Lastly, categorisation is better than lists - I would delete lists first; however this would generate a big argument between broadly people who want to keep and add information, and those who would want things to be more concise. I will admit I side more to keeping content and improving it (inc. categories), than culling things. I wonder if this needs to be taken up a level for a general debate about categories and lists? Further I would also agree if wikidata supports it that game engine information can be moved there, and potentially data automatically generated from that (is someone working on this)? I think it's worthwhile getting this replacement system in place before deleting categories. - Master Of Ninja (talk) 20:27, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an addition to my comment, Category:Video game lists by game engine should be deleted with *most* of the lists. I think only Source and GoldSource looks relatively well cited, although I need a closer look. The rest are lists of potential dubious authenticity, that should go into a blog post as original research. Although I mentioned I like keeping things, it's only if they are properly cited - Master Of Ninja (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @User:Respiciens - I've gone down the rabbit hole, now that I've started looking around, and see the proposal for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of CryEngine games. I note that someone has mentioned instead of lists, they use categories. There might be circular arguments being made - is there an alternative forum that more people can be involved in this discussion of lists v categories v other methods of sorting articles by a specific measurement? I suspect if you want to create precedent you need lots of people involved, and might need editors to contribute to a SOP at a specific wiki project portal, or even general WP forum? - Master Of Ninja (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I mentioned above that I created that lists deletion nomination. I don’t know where this more general topic of lists vs categories can be discussed, and whether that’s needed in this particular case. Respiciens (talk) 20:48, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for missing that. I suspect even highlighting again this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games, and might be worth also trying to involve people at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) with the rationale that there are a lot of lists and categories that are being proposed to get deleted. This is to avoid a situation that a big change might only be discussed by c.10 people, and in future someone takes issue with this (the background is that I was involved with a previous attempted deletion years ago, that was minimally discussed and pushed through, that got a lot of people worked up, had the deletion discussion re-opened with lots of people being involved over months that led to the whole debate being closed on the basis that WP was never going to achieve consensus on the issue). If it is done this way at least it can be demonstrated we have given an extended period of time for debate. As per the Cry Engine delete page, I *now* actually favour plan to keep for now, delete in say x months, with a plan to move referenced engine information to WikiData - Master Of Ninja (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Added 2 notifications: WikiProject Video games, Village pump (proposals). Respiciens (talk) 11:31, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also made the link to another discussion in both ledes more prominent. Respiciens (talk) 13:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defining characteristic that some will search by. Millions of people try out these engines, and this is something they look for, so useful for navigation. Dream Focus 07:25, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think "millions of people" is a really ridiculous exaggeration, but engine is a defining characteristic for some games (e.g. Decima/Frostbite). WPVG has a lot of ridiculous categories. These are already the reasonable ones. OceanHok (talk) 13:23, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: To answer folks above − yes we do track this information in Wikidata, see d:Wikidata:WikiProject Video games/Statistics/Engine. (The exception would be Lua-scripted and Python-scripted − I don’t think we have a data model for that yet) Jean-Fred (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: NONDEF indeed applies for Unity games, but I don't feel it applies for many of these. for example, Twine games are practically a gaming genre on their own; same with Source engine games; those categoies are very much notable. A delete-discussion should ideally occur on an individual basis for each of these categories, but since that would waste quite a lot of editor time, I'd support just keeping them all. For anyone who supports Delete, I'd suggest your next steps should be to gather solid consensus around a new set of criteria outlining which game engine categories should be notable, and which ones shouldn't be. Alternatives (either delete-all, or individual discussion for each category) seem somewhat unproductive. DFlhb (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of curiosity, why do you consider Source more of a defining characteristic than Unity?
    The genre Twine games are part of is interactive fiction. Ink, I believe, is fairly similar in terms of what kinds of games it can produce, but I'm not very familiar with either. 3mi1y (talk) 05:57, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — because it is only for games with articles, it is notably incomplete; not the best thing for a category. Lists are better, and verifiable. AAA games rarely have a new game engine, they are usually just improvements on a previous engine with a newish name.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep This seems like using an axe where a scalpel will do. Some of these categories may be not useful; but others may be. I think there may be use for some of these categories, but to lump them together and say "we once deleted one other category on one other game engine" as though that establishes some kind of obvious rule we are bound to follow for all categories of all game engines is not useful. If we want to have such a rule, establish a WP:PAG-type guidance so we can get consensus for such a general rule. If no such rule exists, we need to consider each such category on its merits. Legislating through precedence is NEVER a good idea, and certainly not this broadly. --Jayron32 16:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning keep.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • If there is consensus that these are non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations (and it seems there was, in that discussion) then categories are equally inappropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:50, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was in that discussion, but that doesn't make it actually correct. The engine driving a video game is often part of the promotion or marketing materials. An NECC is something like "Left-handed Irish people" where lefthandedness and Irish ancestry have nothing to do with each other. "Left-handed guitarists" might be an acceptable category, because how one plays guitar is at least somewhat influenced by handedness, depending on if RSes have covered it. The discussion in that AfD was terrible in this regard and not policy-based, but no one brought it up and I didn't notice it until it had been closed. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 22 October 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:Banu Abi'l-Shawarib[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. Currently 3 articles. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:44, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in the category, about two brothers, and the articles are already directly interlinked. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category has considerable scope for expansion. I quote from one of the articles, "Abdallah belonged to the Banu Abi'l-Shawarib family, a Hanafi legal family that in the 9th and 11th centuries produced 24 qadis, including eight chief qadis, for the Abbasid caliphs". The chief qadis alone are notable enough to merit articles of their own. Constantine ✍ 06:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now Not clear to me those other people are notable since the articles don't exist yet. No objection to recreating if/when we get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: the linked category in Arabic Wikipedia only has three articles so far. – Fayenatic London 10:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 21 October 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:Acorn Archimedes games[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 29#Category:Acorn Archimedes games

Category:Philosophy and culture[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 merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:47, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: all the contents of this category are just creative works about philosophy or topics in philosophy of culture, and there's no clear critieria for what "philosophy and culture" means so it's just attracts an indiscriminate collection of articles - car chasm (talk) 22:05, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this way, many articles do not fit at least one of the merge targets. Deletion (with manual recategorization) may be an option though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand. Which members of this category do you think do not fit one of the merge targets (or their subcategories)? (I was assuming a manual merge, I apologize if that was unclear) - car chasm (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 17:42, 21 October 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:EMF miniEURO[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 10:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The event appears to have been renamed. I can't find a specific citation for this, otherwise I would list it for Speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 13:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 13:07, 22 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - although in future, article should have been moved by RM and then categories by CFDS. GiantSnowman 13:08, 22 October 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.

CfD section High commissioners for Commonwealth countries[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 29#CfD section High commissioners for Commonwealth countries

Category:People from Zabaykalsky Krai[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 all. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each Rathfelder (talk) 10:01, 21 October 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 Yaroslavl Oblast[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 all. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each Rathfelder (talk) 09:53, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • First listify in a "Notable people" section in the location article. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No objection to listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. — Mugtheboss (talk) 16:41, 14 November 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:8th century in Morocco[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 29#Category:8th century in Morocco

Category:Medieval chemists[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 10:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, only one article in the category and it is already more appropriately in an engineers category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the one article hardly refers to chemistry. If anything it would not be chemistry but alchemy anyway. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 23 October 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_October_21&oldid=1125649722"