Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 4

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4 edit

Category:Fictional comets 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 to Category:Fiction about comets. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the included articles are actually about fictional comets, just fictional works that take place on fictional comets. Therefore, a merge would be more accurate. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bart's Comet, Charlotte (TV series), and Sozin's Comet might remain as referring to the actual comets, but it would be fine to upmerge all until there are more articles about fictional comets. I also moved several articles to Category:Comets in film. Goustien (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, too few actual fictional comets for now. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Several of these articles are simply miscategorized. Dimadick (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Most articles I have looked up did not take place on fictional comets, but were about events on Earth trigerred by the appearance of fictional comets. However this is even less defining than if it was their setting, and Category:Fiction about comets is the right place for this. Place Clichy (talk) 14:36, 8 February 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:Fictional asteroids 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Already small enough that there is no need for a separate category, especially when redirects are ruled out. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:02, 4 February 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:Fictional galaxies 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category is not large enough to be populated. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- This is inevitably about SciFi, but it makes little difference what kind of astronomical location is involved. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge: unlikely to be expanded (Ha ha ha  ) Place Clichy (talk) 14:36, 8 February 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:Works set in fictional galaxies 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for the same reason as the fictional planets category. Per WP:NONDEF and WP:OVERCAT - it is not defining that a work is set in a galaxy, much less a fictional one. If a particular fictional galaxy is a notable setting, that can be mentioned in the parent category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This usually just means it's set in a planet far, far away. What made up name is used for the galaxy isn't defining since most stories take place in a smaller scale. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Ther setting of a fictional work is defining. Dimadick (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The setting of a fictional work is not unilaterally defining. Being set in a specific place like a hospital or police station can be defining. Simply being set on a planet, or being in a galaxy, is not a defining aspect of a work.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:51, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- This is inevitably about SciFi, but it makes little difference what kind of astronomical location is involved. This should go into a Category:Fictional astronomical places tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or alt merge to Category:Works set in fictional astronomical locations. I do not think that there is much potential content explicitly located in fictional galaxies besides the Star Wars universe, as most sci-fi works are usually located in the Milky Way (on real or fictional locations) or in further galaxies that do exist. However this is part of a coherent structure (both as Category:Works set in outer space, Category:Works by fictional setting and Category:Fictional astronomical locations) that is worth keeping in all 3 directions, according to my opinion below on #Category:Works set on fictional planets. Place Clichy (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason it's delete and not merge is that being set in a fictional galaxy does not necessarily mean they are set in outer space. And merely being set in a fictional astronomical location of any kind is not defining enough, as opposed to outer space.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:32, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I don't think there can be galaxies, fictional or otherwise, inside the stratosphere of Planet Earth, and everything outside of it is outer space. This includes the ground of the Moon, Mars and any other celestial body. I also do believe that location of a fictional work is nearly always defining, these categories being part of a structured set. The "fictional galaxy" level, however, can be upmerged with other types of fictional astronomical locations as this combination of words is a bit awkward for reasons stated in my first reply. Place Clichy (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not defining. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:30, 17 February 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:Contemporary history of 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 to Category:Modern history of the United States. Everyone agrees that the nominated category is unsatisfactory. The tree is in a confused and seemingly arbitrary state. Merging to Category:Modern history of the United States may be a temporary measure, pending other nominations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Contemporary" is poorly defined, and it meaning can probably change over time. It makes more since to use the extant categories Category:History of the United States (1991–2008) and Category:History of the United States (2008–present). —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Modern history of the United States per nom. The whole setup of this tree is unusual, with arbitrary cut points at 2008, 1991 etc., and the tree goes only back to 1964 while Modern history usually means the 19th-20th-21st century. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somehow. The cut-off points of 1991 and 2008 are arbitrary. The usual WP practice is to categorise by decades. In US it might be done by presidencies, but I expect we have categories for that already. However Category:Modern history of the United States seems to cover very much the same ground. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These cutoff points for categories match with articles covering the same time periods. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 05:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, the articles covering the different time periods can be placed together in a category covering a larger timeframe. Place Clichy (talk) 14:36, 8 February 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:WikiProject Law, Sport, And Science 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nonsensical category. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, Sport, And Science. Whpq (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G8 as dependent on the deleted WikiProject page. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:54, 4 February 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:Works set on fictional planets 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OVERCAT - far too broad to be defining. Any work that doesn't directly specify it takes place on Earth can be on a fictional planet. There is therefore little use for this category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all virtually all sci fi works are on fictional planets (yes, some are on Mars, etc.) but is it defining that a work is based on Mars vs. on a Mars-like planet? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • :Delete per Carlossuarez46. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It's not at all true that "virtually all" scifi works are on fictional planets. Very many, perhaps most, are on Earth, past, present, future or alternate. Others are on planets or moons in known space or set on space ships or space stations. A fictional planet, with alien landscape and perhaps alien inhabitants, is a very particular type of primary location in scifi or fantasy. Robina Fox (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The issue is whether taking place on a fictional world is defining. It's not. A fictional world is typical for the genre and is almost never worthy of mention.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:53, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The setting of a fictional work is a defining aspect. Dimadick (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not defining when the place is fictional. Then it is just a random name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is too standard in SciFi to be defining. I have a character who lives on ABC Planet or XYZ Planet in the 1st Chapter. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- This is inevitably about SciFi. Category:Works set in fictional astronomical locations might be an appropriate merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This hierarchy works well and is properly populated, with settings that are often defining for sci-fi works. E.g. one of my favorite sci-fi works, comics series Aldebaran is so defined by the setting that it takes its name from it (the Aldebaran star is real, but the planet which is the setting of the series if fictional). As others have noted, it is not because it is sci-fi that the setting itself is fictional (there is plenty of sci-fi set on the Moon, Mars, the Earth, Pluto etc.) and there is also non-sci-fi work set on fictional outer-space locations, e.g. in utopian literature. Place Clichy (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The primary setting of a fictional work is definitely a defining characteristic, and since there are categories for other locational settings for works of fiction, categories for works set on fictional planets are useful navigation tools to have. And not all works of sci-fi and fantasy take place on fictional planets, so the categories would not become overloaded.The Editor 155 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 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:Zero thermal expansion materials 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More accurate description of contents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since the articles use the phrasing "very low". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 6 February 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:Timeline of the War in Iraq (2013–2017) 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This should probably be plural; we have Category:Timelines of the First Libyan Civil War and other similar categories in which the articles are named "Timeline of... (time span)". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:01, 4 February 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.

Basshunter music video categories 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 11 February 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:One-thousanders 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: there is some support for a future nomination.– Fayenatic London 12:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:One-thousanders

THIS IS A DISCUSSION, NOT A NOMINATION.

Editors who are not sure whether a class of redirects should be reorganized or deleted are allowed to open a discussion about them rather than immediately nominating them for deletion.

...etc.

These cats contain subcats such as:

...etc.

...Which in turn contain the actual mountains.

All of this seems needlessly complicated and of little use to the reader.

Can we simplify this scheme? Perhaps a set of cats for mountains by height and another set of cats for mountains by country? There has to be a better way to do this.

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as 'category clutter'."
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The height of a mountain is defining. We have discussed some of these before (eg 2009_January_20#Category:Eight-thousanders). Can you point out any articles where 'category clutter' has occurred? The ones I've looked at are remarkably uncluttered with categories. Oculi (talk) 16:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The result of that 12-year-old RfC was not "The height of a mountain is defining". it was "no consensus". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Delete all per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Yes, the height of a mountain is defining (in the same way that the population or area of a city or country is), but we oughtn't categorize on arbitrary stepping stones. Moreover, using a meter rather than foot, or mile, or something else is also arbitrary. Why not a series of categories Category:Fourteen thousand footers in Colorado or so? Certainly as defensible as these. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Favor Merging/Deleting all per WP:ARBITRARYCAT and Carlossuarez46. Since this is a discussion and not a nomination, the cats are not tagged though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we have a consensus, but the reason I posted this as a discussion and not a nomination is that I am unsure exactly what to do. Delete the X-thousanders cats and the country subcats? Or just the X-thousanders of [country] cats? Is there a cat I should insert as I remove them? Advice would be most helpful. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Three actions are required for a formal nomination: in the list above you need to mention in detail "propose deleting" or "propose merging" and in the latter case the merge target for that category has to be specified. Second, you need to tag all nominated category pages with {{subst:cfm||Category:One-thousanders}} or {{subst:cfd|Category:One-thousanders}} in case of merging or deletion respectively. And finally this discussion should be relisted on the CfD page of today. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Right. I understand the mechanics. What I am asking is which pages to propose deleting, which pages to propose merging, which categories to propose renaming, and whether to add any categories as I do this. The comment below is a good example of helpful advice; advising against a general merger into "x-metre" categories without the "of county X" part. I can think of several way to reorg these cats, and haven't decided which scheme is best. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • By default merge to all parent categories except the xxxx-metre parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to 7000-metre peaks of foo. There is no reason why we should not also have Category:14000-foot peaks in Colorado. Since mountain ranges may be international boundaries, it may be better to focus on mountain ranges, rather than countries. I would not favour a general merger into 7000-metre peaks (save as a container for more specific categories), as this would produce unmanageably large categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in principal, selectively merge where need be, as some of the categories are quite small. After some searching (which I recommend everyone in this discussion do), it seems like in the technical field these terms are widely used, and not just some arbitrary cutoff made up on WP.--Prisencolin (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Something I raised in the 2009 discussion, which I still don't have an answer to: This is categorization by arbitrary cut-offs, but they are apparently arbitrary cut-offs which are used outside of WP. Do we have other categories with arbitrary criteria that we keep only because the arbitrary criteria are in use outside of WP? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any widespread use of any of them except eight thousand, and even then ten highest and five highest or more commonly used arbitrary cutoffs. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request for help edit

I am not particularly familiar with the nuts and bolts of doing a cat reorg, so would someone with more experience in this area please evaluate the above discussion and turn it into actual nominations that match the consensus? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Guy Macon: see my earlier procedural comments. Feel free to ask on my talk page if anything in particular is still unclear to you. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggest using {{cfm-double}} for merging to both parents. It appears to me that it's the use of small intersection categories which may be undesirable. After that, the validity of e.g. Category:One-thousanders could be more easily debated separately.
    • @Guy Macon: DannyS712 may be willing to help with tagging. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 12 March 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:Rail stations in Taiwan by system 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:Rail stations in Taiwan by operator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some of the subcategory are operated by government department like Category:Railway stations served by Taiwan Railways Administration, Category:Alishan Forest Railway stations operated by Forestry Bureau. These government department aren't companies. 迴廊彼端 (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:"System" seems too general to describe the operators. Considering the most similar parent category is Category:Railway stations by company, it could be better to replace "System" with "organization". It would be great to rename Category:Railway stations by company to Category:Rail stations in Taiwan by operatorCategory:Rail stations in Taiwan by operator because there are some railway systems operated by government departments or social organizations which are not companies.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question why is company relevant here? The nominated category is by system, not by company. Thryduulf (talk) 11:01, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing me. I have corrected it.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both "by system" and "by organization" are unusual railway station diffusion schemes. Can't we better just merge the category to its parent Category:Railway stations in Taiwan? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle:I don't think it's a good idea. The similar categories("by company" in Commons, "by system" in Vietnamese wiki and Enwiki, "by operaters" in Japanese wiki, "by organization" in Chinese wiki) exist in several language of Wikipedia and Commons and I'm trying to make them the same. If we could get consensus here, I would go further to open another discussion to change the parent category Category:Railway stations by company.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 11:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "by organization" sounds quite odd, "by operator" is preferable if any global change is implemented at all. Even so, "by company" should remain a subcategory of "by operator". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:Thanks for you opinion. I totally agree with you and Ive changed my proposition. --迴廊彼端 (talk) 02:29, 8 February 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:Unity (game engine) games edit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. This was relisted a couple of times in an effort to get a stronger consensus, but we had no takers. With what we have, there is a rough consensus to delete. Perhaps the other related categories could be nominated to overcome the procedural arguments that were made in favour of retention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. The Unity engine is so ubiquitous that roughly half of all new games are made with it (50% market share per [1]), especially lower-end and mobile games. At any rate, a game engine is now almost never a defining (read: lead-worthy) aspect of a video game, because there are so many functionally very similar engines that do not really affect a game's use or reception. Sandstein 19:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep Category:Video games by game engine, by your argument, should be deleted, so nominating a single subcategory will not address the larger problem. There is no sense deleting one game engine's category for arbitrary reasons when others still exist. Besides that, deleting this category while List of Unity games still exists and is uncontested also does not make any sense.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zxcvbnm, you are right; if consensus here is to delete this subcategory I will also nominate the parent category and other subcats. But the existence of a list does not imply the need for a category and vice versa. Sandstein 12:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: Well, my vote remains keep. Unity games may encompass 50% of all new games, but the category/list only includes games that have articles. A game's engine is useful information that is not pointless to include, so deleting it seems to be an example of WP:AINTBROKE in that there is no clear problem that needs to be fixed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zxcvbnm, I agree that it is useful information and should be in the article, and there is an infobox field for it. But is not a defining feature of a game and therefore not worth categorizing by according to our standards. (Otherwise we'd also categorize by packaging color, first name of the lead developer's dog, etc.). Sandstein 14:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: I disagree that the engine is never a defining feature. In some games it's not but in other games it can be. In indie games, the engine is usually ignored by the game playing public, but could be defining from a development standpoint. For AAA games, "made in _insert new, pretty engine here_" can be a marketing tool and mentioned prominently about the game. Since it could be a defining feature, it should be kept.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I created the cat. Wikidata could serve the same role, but I don't see harm in keeping the category. After all, the category is only for games with articles. This kind of attitude is why I don't want to participate in WPVG anymore. ➧datumizer  ☎  15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and set precedent for the rest — 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. In my previous job, there was a lot of activity over the past few years in the film industry for standardizing on AR/VR engines. ILM was using Unity and Unreal, and is making its improvements widely available. IMnsHO, this is to the benefit of all of us.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:14, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A game is very much defined by the fundamental skeleton on which it runs. Something does not need to be in the lead of an article to be defining. A game engine is the underlying system of a game; it limits what the game can and cannot do, and they result in horrendous problems when misunderstood. Some games have horrendously troubled development because of their engines; see Anthem and developer problems with Frostbite (game engine). In no way is a video game engine comparable to the colour of the game's cover or the "first name of the lead developer's dog". The list is not useful or productive to discuss here, so let's leave the list out of it. Lastly, the nominator's rationale doesn't make much sense to me. They argue first that the category should be deleted because Unity is ubiquitous, but then argue that removing this will set a precedent to remove other video game engine categories? Those seem opposed: why argue against a category because has a 50% market share in order to remove the smaller categories (that are, thus, even more useful for quickly finding things)? — ImaginesTigers (talk) 13:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers, this view is at odds with our categorization guideline, WP:CATDEF, which says: "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." A game engine is a technical aspect of a game that is of interest to specialists, but not so defining as to be commonly mentioned in reliable sources. For example, if newspapers write about the game Candy Crush, they write things like "the puzzle game Candy Crush", or "the mobile game Candy Crush", but they will not describe it as "the Unity engine game Candy Crush". This makes the game engine unsuited to categorization for our purposes. Sandstein 14:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Thanks for that! I'm still pretty new, so having that definition for what defining means is really helpful. Thanks for being so diplomatic in telling me; I've struck my keep. I do still have a problem with the rest of the rationale, but WP:NONDEF is clearly not met. To be honest, I don't really like categories in general. Readers don't know they exist and editors just argue about them. Delete. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 4 February 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:Physician-politicians 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category was previously deleted here in 2009 on the grounds that it is a trivial intersection. I don't think anything has changed. See also here, where Category:Nurse-politicians was deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- When a medic becomes a politician, he (she) will almost inevitably continue to have an interest in medical topics and be able to speak authoritatively in a legislature on medicine-related topics, in a way that a non-medic cannot. Politicians by previous profession is accordingly a highly non-trivial intersection. The intersection with some professions will certainly be trivial, but not science and medicine related ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and previous discussions. There are so many physicians in politics that it is in no way defining, and their political interests are in no way limited to health-related topics. (Bashar are you there?) Place Clichy (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the US Congress maintains a list of Physicians_in_the_United_States_Congress (source at the bottom of the page). Unless this list is delete I see no reason for the category to go per WP:NOTDUPE. Looking through a quick google search of the term suggests that this phenomenon is notable in its own right, thus satisfying WP:DEFININGness. What has changed in 2009 includes press coverage of how COVID-19 has affected physicians running for public office in the US [2]. --Prisencolin (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is very US-specific and categorizing politicians as such might seem an attack statement as potential puppets of the pharmaceutical industry. If the category is kept, rename to Category:American physician-politicians and purge other nationalities. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think this intersection is very defining. It used to be extremely common since medical doctors were one of the few well educated people in most communities. When we get into often part-time, local politicians like mayors I suspect it becomes even more common. Does Willard Richards qualaify? He was very involved in medical endevors, even if his training as a Thomsonian physician was a bit different than modern medical practices (but considering the actions of main steam physicians in the 1840s, might mean he was better than the contemporary norm. In the Provisional State of Deseret he was secretary and president of the council. He served as territorial secretary once Utah became a territory. I suspect if we even did a bit fuller search through our existing limited number of articles on 19th-century members of state legislatures in the US we would find many more examples of physician-politician. In the grand scheme this does not seem to be a notable intersection. It only seems a little notable because we have way to Amerocentric and presentist a view of the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Politicians often used experience based on their prior careers, but this intersection doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:54, 15 February 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:Sokolov Prize recipients 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The city government of Tel Aviv, Isral gives out a journalism award called the Sokolov Award. That article makes clear that the Israel Prize in Communications is the top career award for journalists in Israel, not this award. The contrast could not be clearer with the Nahum Barnea article: the Israel Prize in Communications is right in the lede while this award gets a passing reference with other honours. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 4 February 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:Freemen of the City of Gloucester 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC) and, for the parent category, WP:C1
The Freedom of the City of Gloucester was originally automatically given to members of livery companies to conduct business while later it could be purchased by individuals like a business license. While most other cities converted these into awards for outsiders, Gloucester's current "Freemen and Women" seem more like a civic booster club. (Their web site is down but here is their Twitter feed to get the vibe.) All three of these phases seem non-defining because the Wikipedia articles we have are notable for other reasons and this status just seems to reflect that pre-existing prominence. The category contents are already listified right here in the list article for any reader interested in the topic. (If this nomination passes, it will empty the parent category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 4 February 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_February_4&oldid=1013169160"