Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

November 25[edit]

Category:Video game review websites[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very substantial overlap. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I checked a number of articles and very few are exclusively about reviews. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2019 (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:Commerce websites[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:41, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No actual articles, nor any definition. Rathfelder (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2019 (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:Transformers spacecraft[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. As they are more characters than ships, deleting makes more sense, but otherwise upmerge to only "Fictional spacecraft by work." TTN (talk) 14:23, 25 November 2019 (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:Dune spacecraft[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: double merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. I nominated it for deletion as well. If it survives, it should be upmerged to the parent categories. TTN (talk) 14:21, 25 November 2019 (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:Red Dwarf spacecraft[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. It appears that the article was deleted (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spacecraft in Red Dwarf), so the category is now empty. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. I nominated it for deletion. If it survives, then only the one article should be upmerged to the two parent categories. TTN (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since all of the redirects in this category target the same list, which is also in this category, I am inclined to agree with the nom that the redirects should be de-categorized and the article upmerged. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:08, 26 November 2019 (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:Earth Alliance Vessels[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 7#Category:Earth Alliance Vessels

Category:Succession-based civil wars[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. @Nederlandse Leeuw: I will list this for manual merging at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:56, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First: the term "succession-based civil war" – defined as 'civil wars in which the primary cause involved rights to succession to leadership' – appears to be entirely WP:OR (created by User:BusterD in January 2008), no scholar uses it.
Second: there appears to be no clear distinction between this s-bcw and a war of succession, especially because this s-bcw category's description claims that "The main article for this category is War of succession", adding "See also: Category:Dynastic conflicts", while being a subcategory of Category:Wars of succession; this is a clear indication that purports to describe some subset of the same phenomenon, although it is unclear which, since it doesn't have its own separate Wikipedia article and is not recognised by scholars using the term.
Third: wars of succession are always 'civil wars', that is to say, intrastate wars: an armed conflict between factions within a state. Even if monarch X of state A intervenes on behalf of one of the claimants (say, Y) for the throne of state B, that doesn't change the fact that there is conflict inside state B between claimants Y and Z. Even if monarch X of state A is himself/herself a claimant to the throne of state B in opposition to claimant Z, who may be a native of state B and/or of the same dynasty of the previous monarch of state B, monarch X usually has supporters (armed or unarmed, perhaps paid, such as mercenaries or proxies) inside state B who fight or advocate for X's claim. But even if monarch X doesn't have any factual support inside state B, the nature of the claim is such that by definition, X is head of the government of state B in opposition to whoever else claims that function, automatically creating an intrastate conflict. In other words, a purely interstate war of succession does not exist, so a distinction between "succession-based civil wars" and "other" wars of succession seems to be imaginary.
Fourth and final: the definition of these s-bcw is very vague on what it means with 'leadership', and the articles inside this category are often about civil wars that do not involve any dynastic, hereditary succession disputes in monarchies at all, but also contested presidential elections or uprisings against (republican) military regimes, such as the Chilean Civil War of 1891 (added by BusterD), Central Plains War (added by BusterD), Somali Civil War and the Libyan Civil War (2014–present) (added by Charles Essie), all of which took/take place in republics in which there were/are no claimants to any throne, no 'dynastic conflicts' (ps: there have been some rare monarchist demonstrations in Libya, but they don't represent any significant belligerent faction (none of which is headed by or advocating for a claimant), let alone that the death or incapacitation of a monarch caused or directed this war in any significant way). So in a number of instances, the creator BusterD and later Wikipedians do not seem to realise how the term 'war of succession' is used by scholars (as a sidenote: I've given an elaborate overview of how I use it and why here), or interpret 'leadership' wider than just hereditary monarchial reign while invoking 'wars of succession' as the subject and supercategory of s-bcw, which is unhelpful.
In conclusion, I would say that the s-bcw category should be merged into the wars of succession category, except for all the wars in it that have nothing to do with disputed dynastic hereditary successions, and so have no place in either category. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Too poorly defined to be useful. Civil wars are generally very messy.Rathfelder (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge to the historically used term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as category creator. Thanks for the ping. I apologize for my inadvertent OR; to the best of my recollection, at the time I was trying to sort out Category:Civil Wars by type and made a place holder. I feel like 2008 was Wikipedia frontier days compared to the more urban structures created by time and usage. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Looking at Category:Civil wars by type, I can see that my good faith attempt to create a category tree has become a useful, well populated place but surely with flawed titling. To my memory, I was using wordings based on described wars in a contemporary version of the article Civil war and I was considering creating a new portal based on the concept. In trying to wrap my head around the subject of civil wars, I thought a cause-based category would help. I acknowledge that I am not a professional historian and in hindsight I see a bunch of this sorting was and is subjective. BusterD (talk) 21:40, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi BusterD, I really appreciate your response and explanations. It is obvious to me that you acted out of good faith in creating this category (perhaps it intended to be analogous to Category:Religion-based civil wars?), although it now turns out not be as helpful. I actually started editing Wikipedia in January 2008 too, and I wasn't as experienced as I am now either, and in recent years I've corrected or deleted some of my earlier Wikipedia work that I now find inferior, so I completely understand the sentiment. :) And to be honest, it took me a lot of thought (that I wrote down here above) to come to the conclusion that the category in its present form is unhelpful, because in several ways it might seem to be (that's why I never challenged it previously), until you take a closer look. As a 'semi-professional' historian I've recently delved deep into wars of succession, trying to list every war of succession that I can find in literature, and I've begun to understand better and better how they work, and how all of them are in one way or another 'civil wars'. So yeah, let's solve this thing. :) Greetings, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:54, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- They seem to be much the same thing. Wars of Succession is an accepted term. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: if the merger is agreed upon, as seems likely considering the reactions so far, I am willing to carry it out, moving the 'real' wars of succession to category:wars of succession and removing those which do not involve succession disputes from both categories. A lot of other articles, especially those which I recently added to war of succession, still need to be added to the category:wars of succession, so I could do that in one go. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 17:29, 29 November 2019 (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.

Redundant portals 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: double / quadruple merge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: Propose merging to all parents per WP:SMALLCAT. The deletion at WP:MFD of many neglected and unsupported portals has left each of these container categories with only one portal, plus in some cases a category for that portal. These nominated categories are therefore now just redundant layers in the category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All 7 categories now tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the nom. Redudent categories that are no longer needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 18:16, 25 November 2019 (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:Wikipedia training Meta[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a Special:WantedCategories creation. Whatever purpose this single-page category might have served at one time, it serves none now. Wikipedia:Training appears to be abandoned, and Category:Wikipedia training is certainly not so populated that a single-page training "module" needs its own sub-category. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator, User:BrownHairedGirl) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2019 (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:Norfolk County, Massachusetts Registrars of Deeds[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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category for a government position that does not grant notability. I merged one of them and the other two are at AFD. ミラP 04:17, 25 November 2019 (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:Beyzai templates[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) DannyS712 (talk) 02:28, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As far as I can tell, we have only one template related to Bahram Beyzai. As the head template for an eponymous category, it can reside in the main category, and a dedicated sub-category is not needed. It is not necessary to upmerge (i.e., to all parents) as the template is already otherwise categorized. (Courtesy pinging the category's creator, User:Salarabdolmohamadian) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:34, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Persian Wikipedia there are numerous templates for various works by Bahram Beyzai, and making many more is underway. In the English Wikipedia there used to be a sidebar for Bahram Beyzai, other than the present template. They have been merged now; yet, considering the scope of the growing contents of the sidebar in the Persian version, I think we shall need to revive the sidebar in the English Wikipedia as well.Salarabdolmohamadian (talk) 07:01, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    If/when the category is adequately populated, I would have no objection to its existence—except to note that it should be named Category:Bahram Beyzai templates. However, please note that {{Bahram Beyzai sidebar}} was deleted as redundant to the navbox, and it is generally not necessary to have two navigational templates containing overlapping links. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:31, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2019 (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:Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe fighters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 5#Category:Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe fighters

Category:Touchscreen mobile phones[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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category doomed to incompleteness due to obsolescence. This category originated at a time when touchscreens were a novelty. Nowadays the 100% of smartphones include it, so nobody will care to add this category to every single device that comes out. uKER (talk) 00:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, it would be more useful to categorise mobile phones without touchscreens, as they are becoming rare now. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:53, 25 November 2019 (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/2019_November_25&oldid=929659407"