Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 19 May 21 >

May 20[edit]

Category:Films with ballet sequences[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) 00:27, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a necessary category Why? I Ask (talk) 22:01, 20 May 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.

Songs about happiness[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 20:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, trivial song themes that are hardly ever discussed in reliable sources for individual songs. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These entries are brought together in these categories because of WP:SHAREDNAME and I have a perfect example, Cry Now, Laugh Later, which is absolutely silent in the text regarding the lyrics is added to both Category:Songs about crying and Category:Songs about laughter. FWIW, Every song in the laughing category, has the word laugh in the title, except for one italian title which is about clowns, and 'the show must go on.' None of those I looked at mentioned the lyrics were about laughing. So much WP:OR, failure of WP:CATDEF etc. If any editor had the patience these categories could be emptied by applying WP:OVERCATEGORISATION. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all, vague and subjective, all songs were thrown in here by basis of the title. It's not a defining characteristic of any of them. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:30, 22 May 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:Political comic strips[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 29#Category:Political comic strips

Category:Indian musician 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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate, musicians seems to be the standard format Le Deluge (talk) 14:51, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: all the pages in the cat are not templates, but in mainspace. I was about to remove them all, but will not for now since we are at CfD. (please ping on reply)Happy Editing--IAmChaos 04:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment This category has already been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:28, 23 May 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:Continents by religion[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) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grouping of nationalities is bogus. Are all Russian Catholics European? Might some of them not be Asian? Continents are places; nations are about identity or DNA. The two should not be conflated. The "by nationality" tree structure is quite adequate; it does not need to be rounded off by a bogus hierarchy. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:02, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: I suspect the nominator is confusing the legal concept of nationality with that of nationhood. This is a very natural way of grouping together the religion-by-nationality categories. There is nothing remotely controversial about the fact that countries are located on particular continents. –Ploni (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as grouping by continent makes sense. The categories I looked at were mostly container categories with per-country religion articles. Some of these are very large categories, occupying a significant node in the category tree so this is more complex than straight up deletion even if this passes, which in my opinion it should not.--Mvqr (talk) 11:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- These are harmless container categories, which can be useful for navigating. Russia presumably belongs in both Europe and Asia categories. These will largely be about location, not nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These categories are grouping by continent, not nationality...unless you are actually concerned with the child categories contained in the ones you would like deleted. I generally am an inclusionist and a minority voice when I participate in these CFD discussions but, at worst, these categories might be unnecessary but I don't think they are harmful or confusing to editors or readers who might utilize them. I think if we are to be complete, there are some missing categories in this category tree though. Liz Read! Talk! 01:36, 23 May 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:Single Top 100 number-one singles[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 20:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous name. Match with main article Dutch Single Top 100. — Ætoms [talk] 13:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify -- We do not (I think) allow categories for winners; certainly, that is very close to the concept of an award category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Peterkingiron. We have deleted many similar categories in the past. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. There are a number of similar categories that should share the same fate. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:50, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given the support for the deletion of this category, shouldn't all other categories related to topping any record chart be deleted as well? I see that albums have not had these categories for a while now. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A number of other similar categories were deleted per this CfD nearly a year and a half ago. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
None of those charts were considered the "main" chart, like this one or the Billboard Hot 100. It would be weird for only this category to be deleted instead of either leaving it or removing them altogether like for albums. ThedancingMOONpolice (talk) 20:49, 3 June 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:Animals in human culture[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:Animals in culture. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is there a non-human culture that necessitates such a name? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Well, there are non-human cultures, but I agree that this is an unnecessary level of precision, especially since the subcategories are named "X in culture". – Joe (talk) 11:14, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support speedy rename per WP:C2C This did not require a discussion, as an uncontroversial move. However, I am wondering whether all such "in culture" categories really need to exist. Was there a need to combine mythology and pop culture? It seems to have been a completely unilateral decision to make them by User:Invokingvajras. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:03, 25 May 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:Modeling and simulation[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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this is follow-up on this earlier discussion that was closed as no consensus. Meanwhile I have created Category:Military simulation which contains the larger amount of articles that were formerly in Category:Modeling and simulation, so I am assuming that the merger is now uncontroversial. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron, Justus Nussbaum, Pppery, and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with thanks to Marcocapelle. I looked at the linked categories in other-language Wikipedias (see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8637062), as I sometimes feel a responsibility to sort out messes that were copied from English Wikipedia; they could perhaps also be merged likewise if anyone is interested in doing so, without needing a similar split, as they do not contain mainly military-related content. – Fayenatic London 07:27, 21 May 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:Siege of Chernihiv[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 as proposed. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only three articles in the category which are already interlinked directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it's over and won't grow. Best kept in the offensive category for completeness. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:15, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The current structure has 4 theatres of war, of which the first target is one. We will probably not get more articles to make it up to the normal minimum of 5. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 22 May 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:Fictional bikers[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. ✗plicit 03:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In most if not all cases demonstrated in this category, being a biker is not defining. Cloud Strife is not known specifically for being a biker, and neither is Sirius Black or Tank Girl. Ghost Rider could be relocated to Category:Fictional drivers but I don't see any others potentially in need of merge. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:56, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but trim - definitely has multiple defining entries such as Makoto Niijima, Clay Morrow, GoGo Tomago, and Fonzie, alongside Ghost Rider as mentioned earlier. Also, a decent of Cloud Strife's imagery does focus on his bike, (with an entire spin-off game, Final Fantasy VII G-Bike, focused on it). Even without Cloud in there, the category still makes sense. (Oinkers42) (talk) 23:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 06:23, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-defining. ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above. Although Sirius Black has a motorbike, it is not a defining characteristic. Sahaib (talk) 08:07, 27 June 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:Anglican church buildings in Canada[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 8#Category:Anglican church buildings in Canada

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_May_20&oldid=1109723745"