Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 3 February 5 >

February 4[edit]

Category:English anti-fascists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 21#Category:English anti-fascists

Category:2D fighting 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: no consensus. If this is brought back for a further discussion, then I suggest also nominating the 3D category as suggested below, along with the intervening 2.5D category, which does have a parent Category:Video games with 2.5D graphics. – Fayenatic London 11:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created by banned sock; unnecessary since all non-3D games are 2D and they don't need an additional subcategory. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If Category:3D fighting games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) exists, I see no reason why "2D" shouldn't exist as well. If categorization by graphics style is not relevant, then delete Category:3D fighting games together with 2D, if it is relevant, then 2D should be kept. There should not need to be a category exclusion search to find these things if you want a category listing of 2D games. I hazard that if many users were to use the category-intersect tool for this use, it would be computing intensive -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me if I'm a bit... dubious about an anonymous IP editor commenting on something created by a banned sock. But you do bring up a good point. Perhaps a name change to something like Category:Fighting games with 3D combat would make things more distinguishing. Otherwise I am fine with deleting both as overbroad categories. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:18, 4 February 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:Songs from Frozen (2013 film)[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/delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It seems like this can be well-served by one category. A category for Songs from Frozen II was merged following this discussion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:40, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm fairly certain that all 8 songs in this category are already in the merge target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the previous CfD for Frozen II. Only need 1 cat for this, not least because all the songs are already in the parent category. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. As per the previous CfD for Frozen II. --Just N. (talk) 15:17, 7 February 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:Fractional airlines[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:Fractional aircraft ownership companies. – Fayenatic London 11:17, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Fractional ownership of aircraft is an aviation industry business model whereby ownership of an aircraft (commonly a private jet) is pooled among private members, and revenue flights conform to regulations governing on-demand or charter operations (for example, 14 CFR Part 135 in the US).

The category should be renamed because fractional air operators are charter (or 'on demand')) organizations, not scheduled airlines. Airlines operate under their own regulatory standards (14 CFR Part 121 in the US). Headphase (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:29, 4 February 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:Iranian Azerbaijani mathematicians[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 - who are already in mathematical categories. I dont think we need such detailed categorisation by ethnicity. Rathfelder (talk) 18:53, 4 February 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.

Left-handed sportspeople[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) 03:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining over-catergorization. Similar categories have been deleted previously (one, two, three). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep golf For many of these golfers being left-handed is a defining characteristic. Phil Mickelson is known as "lefty". Any mention of Bob Charles (golfer) almost always refers to him as being left-handed. Bubba Watson says in the lede "One of the few left-handed golfers on tour". The difficulty in obtaining left-handed clubs has traditionally meant that only a very small number of players were left-handed (most left-handed players actually played golf right-handed) and it is frequently mentioned. For other sports, eg tennis, there sometimes seem to be more lefties than right-handers. Nigej (talk) 10:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Being left handed is quite significant in some sports, because opponents also have to play differently. I would specifically mention cricket, but it may also apply to fencing. I doubt it makes much difference in water polo. Left footed soccer players may be useful to their team but I doubt that would be worth a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Perhaps the golf one should be renamed "Golfers who play left-handed". Probably more factually correct, since it's not fact that they're left-handed that's noteworthy it's the fact that they play with left-handed clubs. Nigej (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For a random sport this is non-defining. For the particular sports, it is very defining. Fencing: [1], [2], [3] water polo: [4][5], golf: [6][7].--Mvqr (talk) 12:04, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For a random sport this is maybe non-defining. For the particular sports, it is indeed very defining. --Just N. (talk) 15:22, 7 February 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.

Yale University alumni by decade[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 20#Yale University alumni by decade

Category:2020–21 Bangladesh Premier League[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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:47, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, category name is incorrect at it refers to a non-existent season. Only 1 article in the category, so renaming to correct season would be pointless too Joseph2302 (talk) 12:18, 4 February 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:Rugby union players from City of Edinburgh Council[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. The Glasgow categories were already merged per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_27#Category:Rugby_players_from_Glasgow_City_Council. – Fayenatic London 10:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge, the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow coincide with their respective council areas. This is follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:45, 4 February 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:Sports competitors killed in competition[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:Sports competitors who died in competition. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:51, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Most of those are accidental deaths rather than killings. As the proposed name is a catch-all, Category:Bullfighters killed in the arena would not be precluded. Brandmeistertalk 09:31, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I guess. It is an extra word and the original is pretty clear, but OPs point is well taken. (Why not "athletes" instead of "sports competitors" tho?) Herostratus (talk) 21:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The parent is Category:Sports competitors which purports to distinguish itself from Category:Athletes and Category:Sportspeople. Perhaps some merging is warranted, as this is splitting hairs in my opinion. Brandmeistertalk 22:36, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support killing implies an intent to kill, whereas most of these were accidental deaths. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:02, 11 February 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:Scientific simulation software[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, scientific simulation software is not a separate class of simulation software, nearly all simulation software may be regarded as scientific. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' Even if most simulation sw with Wp articles are probably of scientific origin it's still reasonable to preserve the differentation in categories. Let's not trifle with it! --Just N. (talk) 13:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are differentiated by their intended purpose. A simulation of how a protein folds for the purpose of understanding how it would catalyse a reaction is very distinct from other forms of simulation, e.g. flight simulators for the purpose of training or ragdoll physics of bodies in video games. --Xurizuri (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:10, 4 February 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:Alternate 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: delete. – Fayenatic London 10:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear scope; do all logos which have another variant belong here? Note that this is also categories under "Non-free logos" without this being explicitly specified anywhere. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the user who began categorizing files in this category. The purpose of the category is to collect all files that might not meet WP:NFCCP and nominate them for deletion, which I already did. The request however was closed because batch nominations wasn't deemed appropriate. I think ot should be kept but more appropriate as a hidden category.Jonteemil (talk) 17:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:33, 4 February 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_February_4&oldid=1078484829"