Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 21

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

June 21[edit]

Category:Screenshots of Cosmic Rift 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category that's for just one game instead of a series or console. N. Harmonik (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2017 (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:Rainbow Family[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:Hippie movement. – Fayenatic London 12:11, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only four articles--one is the main one and one is dreadlocks which is a very tenuous connection. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:51, 21 June 2017 (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:Films set in companies[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 and add article to Category:Office comedies (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining Rathfelder (talk) 21:44, 21 June 2017 (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 related to Islam[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. I note that there is a List of Christian video games, but the contents here do not correspond to that. – Fayenatic London 07:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too vague to be a category, define "related to". The actual world religion of Islam, how does a video game relate to it? A video game featuring a Muslim character? Or does it have to mention the religion specifically? Real-time strategy games in which the player can control a historical figure does not mean having a relation to Islam. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Too vague and similar categories don't exists for other religions.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:04, 2 July 2017 (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:Harem 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 11#Category:Harem video games. ℯxplicit 05:04, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A video game featuring a harem is not a WP:CATDEF. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is it parented to Category:Harem anime and manga? The Harem (genre) is a distinctive Japanese genre, where a male or female protagonist has 3 or more love interests, and is involved in a polygamous relationship. (Whether the love interests are of the same or opposite sex to the protagonist, or they include both sexes, varies by series.) Since when does the genre cover videogames? Dimadick (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dimadick: Based on your last sentence one might suspect that you support deletion of the nominated category. Could you please confirm? Marcocapelle (talk) 02:40, 29 June 2017 (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:Robot 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 7. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Video games featuring robots" is not a defining characteristic of video games. Highly WP:OR and vague. Rise of the Robots, a fighting game without a substantial narrative to Overwatch, a multiplayer shooter with a robotic character, there are dozens games, if not hundreds, that feature a robot. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Way too vague to categorize.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:01, 2 July 2017 (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:Drone 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: delete. The contents are Half-life, Matrix, Terminator, Call of Duty, Destiny and Warframe, but I only noticed one article mentioning drones (Call of Duty: Advanced Warfare), and that was under Marketing, so this content does not appear to be defining. – Fayenatic London 06:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A video game featuring a drone is not a defining characteristic of a video game. Could be renamed to "video games featuring drones", but that's the same as having a category on "video games having guns". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 21:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Commnet Does a game that spams "our UAVs online!" 24/7 count as "Drone video game"? --Atvica (talk) 08:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Definition of category unclear.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:01, 2 July 2017 (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:DJs from Northern Ireland[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:42, 29 June 2017 (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:Doctor Who Live[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 02:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category that previously linked two articles that had a similar name only. Dresken (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2017 (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:Subjects of iconic photographs[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 7. – Fayenatic London 10:22, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT.
First, the subjectivity: just what is the definition of an "iconic" photo? The article iconography gives no hit of robust criteria.
Second, the non-definingness. Despite a half-hearted warning on the category page that "the people listed in this category are generally those who are most notable for their appearance in the photograph at issue", the warning also notes that "this is not exclusively the case".
The result of the fuzzy inclusion criteria is that the category contains plenty of articles on people who are clearly not defined by their photos, but who have been the subject of some great photos because of their notability: e.g. Salvador Allende, Lee Harvey Oswald, Lyndon B. Johnson, Winston Churchill. Sure, those pages could be removed from the category, but the lack of any simple and robust criteria will just lead to the category filling up with more stuff. For every person such as Ira Hayes who clearly is defined by a photo, there are dozens more subjective cases. This cannot be fixed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (rename) and fix. There are clearly people such as Afghan Girl, Phan Thi Kim Phuc, Omayra Sánchez, Florence Owens Thompson, and the six Iwo Jima flag raisers (Michael Strank, Harlon Block, Franklin Sousley, Rene Gagnon, Ira Hayes, and Harold Schultz) whose notability objectively can be identified as arising entirely from the fact that they were the subjects of a photograph which can objectively be described as iconic based on widespread dissemination and critical recognition. Absent such a category, we have no way of tying these people together by their primary identifying characteristic. If necessary, we can establish clearer criteria for inclusion in the category, and tweak the category name to reflect this. bd2412 T 11:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Whether a photo is iconic is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: What would you consider a neutral descriptor by which to categorize photographs that can be objectively demonstrated as widely known, such as Afghan Girl, Napalm Girl, and the raising of the flag at Iwo Jima? bd2412 T 15:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
      • There can be none, because the whole basis of the category is subjective: what is iconic is a matter of the editor's opinion. We just cannot have such categories. My objection was not NPOV. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • What if the descriptor was not "iconic"? We must have some objective standard to determine that these people are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles in the first place. bd2412 T 16:32, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
        • In light of the above comments, I propose renaming this to Category:People notable for being the subject of a specific photograph. This eliminates the question of whether a given photograph is "iconic" and focuses on the notability of the subject. It is, of course, highly implausible that a person would be notable for being the subject of a photograph if the photograph itself was not notable. bd2412 T 01:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Listify, a table with subject, photographer and circumstances would be a useful addition to the history of photography, but the subjects have too little in common for a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That could also work. bd2412 T 19:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Rename per BD2412. I'm the editor who added Lyndon B. Johnson and Evelyn McHale to this category. I would not have added Johnson if the category were more narrowly defined, but McHale is a perfect example of a person whose notability rests on a single photograph. DragonflyDC (talk) 03:56, 5 July 2017 (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 by Christiaan Huygens[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 06:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two books in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2017 (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:Financial company logos[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 10:23, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories seem to have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2017 (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:Human–animal linguistic communication[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 22:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Why should we constrain it to linguistic communication? It would be better to use the broader category. Alternatively a superordinate category could be created but I don't think there's enough pages to warrant that. Fixuture (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. Anythingyouwant (talk) 19:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disperse content among the two parent categories, then delete, this category is mixing up three relatively unrelated topics: talking animals, animal language and human-animal communication. There is too little content to split, so merging is a better idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. I looked at the parent categories, and I think the original proposal to rename would work better, although some pages should probably be moved between these categories. I agree with the nom that the category should cover all human-animal communication, not limited to linguistic communication, and also that it's sufficiently distinct from the parent categories that an upmerge is not desirable. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:57, 21 June 2017 (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.

Biographical 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 after listing more of the contents in the main articles, and creating expedition categories Category:Belgian Antarctic Expedition and Category:Amundsen's South Pole expedition for Amundsen, and Category:Magellan–Elcano circumnavigation for Magellan. – Fayenatic London 12:08, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete (or heavily purge some of them?) per WP:OCEPON especially since the larger amount of content of these categories is inappropriate, e.g. per WP:SHAREDNAME. Pinging @Spinningspark, Peterkingiron, RevelationDirect, and JarrahTree: who participated in this earlier similar discussion. The nominated categories have all been created by the same editor User:Hocimi of whom some more categories have been nominated in the past weeks. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and purge -- These seem to be a mixture of "things associated with ..." and "things named after ...". The latter, at least, is a "shared name" category, which is not allowed. The right place for that is a dab-page. For the explorers, we might have the basis of a category, but it should probably be called Category:Expeditions of Roald Amundsen, etc, which would take it out of OCEPON. In some cases substantially everything is "named after": those need to be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 03:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, there is no contents for Barentsz or Tasman. All of their explorations are included in the main article. The categories largely contain geographic places they have been, but the respective Dutch explorer is not defining for these places. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2017 (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/2017_June_21&oldid=1143889519"