Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 8 December 10 >

December 9[edit]

Category:Wheelchair users[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) Qwerfjkltalk 08:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Davidgoodheart: but is the reverse also true: do all wheelchair users have paraplegia? If not, a reverse merge might be more appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I am not yet sure about this. First lets see what other people think about this. Now I see that this doesn't apply to every case. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:19, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Comment What about people with paraplegia who use other assistive tech? Or people before wheelchairs were invented? I'd need a much more compelling rationale to support this Mason (talk) 23:10, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing my recommendation from comment to Oppose 22:30, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Oppose Not all wheelchair users have paraplegia or tetraplegia. Several current members of this category do not (Helen Anne Henderson - MS, Ruth Madeley - spina bifida, Beryl Potter - triple amputee, to name just the first three I could think of off the top of my head). Marcocapelle's suggestion of a reverse merge may be more appropriate, but I am inclined to agree with Mason that such a merge would have its own issues. Samsmachado (talk) 20:34, 12 December 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:Global Alliance for Banking on Values[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 to Category:Community development financial institutions or appropriate subcats. (I also made a list in the main article.) – Fayenatic London 09:56, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Big corporations like banks are members of hundreds if not thousands of trade bodies. If the trade body is notable (which in this case I highly doubt—Wikipedia's page on it is a pseudoarticle sourced only to their own website), then it's reasonable to have a list page for people to see the members. Having a standalone category for something this tangential to the pages within it is nonsensical, though; if followed through, some articles would be in literally thousands of categories.  ‑ Iridescent 06:50, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a membership is hardly ever a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • repurpose -- This is an association of credit unions and other micro-finance providers. The main article uses the term "values-based banking". I assume that these banks etc conform to a standard defined by the alliance, making them a genuine category of banks. We can thus make this into a category for such institutions. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:06, 9 December 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.
  • @Marcocapelle: then there should be a split. I'm a credit union member, my parents were credit union members, I liked the merge to credit unions. As to whether each member is "ethical" or "community development" should be deterimined on a case by case basis.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:31, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • (as closer) By all means merge to better targets in the other parent hierarchy where appropriate. – Fayenatic London 19:35, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @William Allen Simpson: if an individual article is about a credit union then of course it should be added to the credit union category too, but that can be done irrespective of this discussion. The discussion is about where the Global Alliance for Banking on Values as a whole belongs, and that is in ethical banking (if only, the word Values implies it is about ethics). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

American women activists[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: Containerise / Merge per nomination. – Fayenatic London 12:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/containerize per WP:EGRS, activists in general need not be diffused by gender. Of course there are specific women's rights activists categories that should stay, but they are based on issue, not on gender per se. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:39, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 22:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. — Qwerfjkltalk 08:27, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — Manually as necessary. This is obviously needed, but helping hands are scarce this time of year, so I'll volunteer non-administratively.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:27, 30 December 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:Members of the Al-Mutairi tribe[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Category:Members of the Al-Mutairi tribe

Category:Men by behavior[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Category:Men by behavior

Category:Scholars under the Almoravid dynasty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Category:Scholars under the Almoravid dynasty

Male YouTubers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 December 17#Male YouTubers

Category:WikiProject Rugby league (State of Origin) members[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 08:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: category for members of a project task force which doesn't exist. Nthep (talk) 12:42, 9 December 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:WikiProject Rugby league (State of Origin)[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 08:26, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: category for a project task force that doesn't exist. Nthep (talk) 12:41, 9 December 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 about X[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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:26, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Not WP:CATDEF; as a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 November 5#Category:Video games about child abduction. Qwerfjkltalk 11:38, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this logic, shouldn't the Films about X categories be deleted as well? HarmonyBunny00 (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We are seriously throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. Whether or not the categories are over-applied is one discussion, but deleting the whole set outright is another entirely. We're deleting the category about time travel? We're deleting the category about the American Revolution? About Nazi Germany? About ninjas? Are we really arguing here that ninjas are not a defining feature of any game? I can easily point to Ninja Gaiden, Shinobi, or Mark of the Ninja, where being a ninja is the entire point of the game. Here are some reliable source lists specifically about ninja games, which I found easily in the first page of a Google search. The premise of this nomination -- that playing as a ninja is inherently not a defining feature per WP:CATDEF -- appears false to me on its face. Let's take a look at some other categories, too. What about the time loop category; are time loops not a defining feature of, say, Deathloop or The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask? Is being a police officer not a defining feature of the Police Quest series? Are the Navy SEALs not a defining feature of SOCOM: U.S. Navy SEALs? Is being a samurai not a defining feature of Ghost of Tsushima? Is being a cat not the defining feature of Stray? This nomination is painting way too broad of a brush here. Lastly, as observed above, such a sweeping deletion would put the equivalent categories for film and literature in jeopardy too. Phediuk (talk) 15:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Phediuk, who says it all. Perhaps there are some categories here that could go, but the mass nomination is an overreach. BD2412 T 03:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Phediuk. Waxworker (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per above. Mass nominations, destroying hundreds of users work in one easy place, should not be "a thing" on such a renowned project. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Being a video game about a pirate or disasters is absolutely defining (see Assassins Creed: Black Flag and Disaster Report, respectively). You might have an argument for some of the categories here, but certainly not all of them at once. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:00, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Qwerfjkl:, we've had contact before about some categories and while I absolutely believe several of these can go (Video games about curses, Video games about birthdays) and some other just too similar (Video games about influenza outbreaks, Video games about diseases) I think this is an overzealous nomination. Like Phediuk pointed out, several of these categories do make sense. I have to oppose as well. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:18, 11 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Pheduik. Perhaps it's best if we don't remove all of these categories that focuses on a central theme of the game(s) which they are included in. We might remove some of them yes, but certainly not all of the categories the OP nominated in the first place. HarmonyBunny00 (talk) 14:32, 11 December 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_December_9&oldid=1141791251"