< February 3 February 5 >

February 4

Category:Fictional comets

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:Fiction about comets. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 19:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of the included articles are actually about fictional comets, just fictional works that take place on fictional comets. Therefore, a merge would be more accurate. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Bart's Comet, Charlotte (TV series), and Sozin's Comet might remain as referring to the actual comets, but it would be fine to upmerge all until there are more articles about fictional comets. I also moved several articles to Category:Comets in film. Goustien (talk) 00:12, 5 February 2021 (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 asteroids

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Already small enough that there is no need for a separate category, especially when redirects are ruled out. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:02, 4 February 2021 (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 galaxies

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, this category is not large enough to be populated. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 23:00, 4 February 2021 (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 set in fictional galaxies

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete for the same reason as the fictional planets category. Per WP:NONDEF and WP:OVERCAT - it is not defining that a work is set in a galaxy, much less a fictional one. If a particular fictional galaxy is a notable setting, that can be mentioned in the parent category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The setting of a fictional work is not unilaterally defining. Being set in a specific place like a hospital or police station can be defining. Simply being set on a planet, or being in a galaxy, is not a defining aspect of a work.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 04:51, 6 February 2021 (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:Contemporary history of the United States

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:Modern history of the United States. Everyone agrees that the nominated category is unsatisfactory. The tree is in a confused and seemingly arbitrary state. Merging to Category:Modern history of the United States may be a temporary measure, pending other nominations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Contemporary" is poorly defined, and it meaning can probably change over time. It makes more since to use the extant categories Category:History of the United States (1991–2008) and Category:History of the United States (2008–present). —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These cutoff points for categories match with articles covering the same time periods. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 05:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK, the articles covering the different time periods can be placed together in a category covering a larger timeframe. Place Clichy (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2021 (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 Law, Sport, And Science

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nonsensical category. See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Law, Sport, And Science. Whpq (talk) 17:08, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G8 as dependent on the deleted WikiProject page. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 21:54, 4 February 2021 (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 set on fictional planets

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OVERCAT - far too broad to be defining. Any work that doesn't directly specify it takes place on Earth can be on a fictional planet. There is therefore little use for this category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Carlossuarez46....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:12, 4 February 2021 (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:Zero thermal expansion materials

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More accurate description of contents. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:49, 4 February 2021 (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:Timeline of the War in Iraq (2013–2017)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This should probably be plural; we have ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Timelines of the First Libyan Civil War and other similar categories in which the articles are named "Timeline of... (time span)". 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 08:01, 4 February 2021 (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.

Basshunter music video categories

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2021 (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:One-thousanders

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: there is some support for a future nomination.– Fayenatic London 12:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:One-thousanders

THIS IS A DISCUSSION, NOT A NOMINATION.

Editors who are not sure whether a class of redirects should be reorganized or deleted are allowed to open a discussion about them rather than immediately nominating them for deletion.

...etc.

These cats contain subcats such as:

...etc.

...Which in turn contain the actual mountains.

All of this seems needlessly complicated and of little use to the reader.

Can we simplify this scheme? Perhaps a set of cats for mountains by height and another set of cats for mountains by country? There has to be a better way to do this.

--Guy Macon (talk) 04:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Categorization is a useful tool to group articles for ease of navigation, and correlating similar information. However, not every verifiable fact (or the intersection of two or more such facts) in an article requires an associated category. For lengthy articles, this could potentially result in hundreds of categories, most of which aren't particularly relevant. This may also make it more difficult to find any particular category for a specific article. Such overcategorization is also known as 'category clutter'."
--Guy Macon (talk) 14:59, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The result of that 12-year-old RfC was not "The height of a mountain is defining". it was "no consensus". --Guy Macon (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Request for help[edit]

I am not particularly familiar with the nuts and bolts of doing a cat reorg, so would someone with more experience in this area please evaluate the above discussion and turn it into actual nominations that match the consensus? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2021 (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:Rail stations in Taiwan by system

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:Rail stations in Taiwan by operator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some of the subcategory are operated by government department like Category:Railway stations served by Taiwan Railways Administration, Category:Alishan Forest Railway stations operated by Forestry Bureau. These government department aren't companies. 迴廊彼端 (talk) 04:12, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:"System" seems too general to describe the operators. Considering the most similar parent category is Category:Railway stations by company, it could be better to replace "System" with "organization". It would be great to rename Category:Railway stations by company to Category:Rail stations in Taiwan by operatorCategory:Rail stations in Taiwan by operator because there are some railway systems operated by government departments or social organizations which are not companies.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing me. I have corrected it.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:Thanks for you opinion. I totally agree with you and Ive changed my proposition. --迴廊彼端 (talk) 02:29, 8 February 2021 (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:Unity (game engine) games

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. This was relisted a couple of times in an effort to get a stronger consensus, but we had no takers. With what we have, there is a rough consensus to delete. Perhaps the other related categories could be nominated to overcome the procedural arguments that were made in favour of retention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. The Unity engine is so ubiquitous that roughly half of all new games are made with it (50% market share per [1]), especially lower-end and mobile games. At any rate, a game engine is now almost never a defining (read: lead-worthy) aspect of a video game, because there are so many functionally very similar engines that do not really affect a game's use or reception. Sandstein 19:14, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zxcvbnm, you are right; if consensus here is to delete this subcategory I will also nominate the parent category and other subcats. But the existence of a list does not imply the need for a category and vice versa. Sandstein 12:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: Well, my vote remains keep. Unity games may encompass 50% of all new games, but the category/list only includes games that have articles. A game's engine is useful information that is not pointless to include, so deleting it seems to be an example of WP:AINTBROKE in that there is no clear problem that needs to be fixed.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:06, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Zxcvbnm, I agree that it is useful information and should be in the article, and there is an infobox field for it. But is not a defining feature of a game and therefore not worth categorizing by according to our standards. (Otherwise we'd also categorize by packaging color, first name of the lead developer's dog, etc.). Sandstein 14:23, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Sandstein: I disagree that the engine is never a defining feature. In some games it's not but in other games it can be. In indie games, the engine is usually ignored by the game playing public, but could be defining from a development standpoint. For AAA games, "made in _insert new, pretty engine here_" can be a marketing tool and mentioned prominently about the game. Since it could be a defining feature, it should be kept.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ImaginesTigers, this view is at odds with our categorization guideline, WP:CATDEF, which says: "A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having—such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc." A game engine is a technical aspect of a game that is of interest to specialists, but not so defining as to be commonly mentioned in reliable sources. For example, if newspapers write about the game Candy Crush, they write things like "the puzzle game Candy Crush", or "the mobile game Candy Crush", but they will not describe it as "the Unity engine game Candy Crush". This makes the game engine unsuited to categorization for our purposes. Sandstein 14:24, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Thanks for that! I'm still pretty new, so having that definition for what defining means is really helpful. Thanks for being so diplomatic in telling me; I've struck my keep. I do still have a problem with the rest of the rationale, but WP:NONDEF is clearly not met. To be honest, I don't really like categories in general. Readers don't know they exist and editors just argue about them. Delete. — ImaginesTigers (talk) 14:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 4 February 2021 (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:Physician-politicians

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 07:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category was previously deleted here in 2009 on the grounds that it is a trivial intersection. I don't think anything has changed. See also here, where Category:Nurse-politicians was deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article is very US-specific and categorizing politicians as such might seem an attack statement as potential puppets of the pharmaceutical industry. If the category is kept, rename to Category:American physician-politicians and purge other nationalities. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 9 February 2021 (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:Sokolov Prize recipients

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Sokolov Prize recipients
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The city government of Tel Aviv, Isral gives out a journalism award called the Sokolov Award. That article makes clear that the Israel Prize in Communications is the top career award for journalists in Israel, not this award. The contrast could not be clearer with the Nahum Barnea article: the Israel Prize in Communications is right in the lede while this award gets a passing reference with other honours. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2021 (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:Freemen of the City of Gloucester

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:08, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Freemen by location
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Freemen of the City of Gloucester
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCASSOC) and, for the parent category, WP:C1
The Freedom of the City of Gloucester was originally automatically given to members of livery companies to conduct business while later it could be purchased by individuals like a business license. While most other cities converted these into awards for outsiders, Gloucester's current "Freemen and Women" seem more like a civic booster club. (Their web site is down but here is their Twitter feed to get the vibe.) All three of these phases seem non-defining because the Wikipedia articles we have are notable for other reasons and this status just seems to reflect that pre-existing prominence. The category contents are already listified right here in the list article for any reader interested in the topic. (If this nomination passes, it will empty the parent category.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 4 February 2021 (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.
More