Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 30 August 1 >

July 31[edit]

Video game characters by creator[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 17:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Please read the discussion at Wikiproject Video Games here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Temperature check: Categorizing video games by creator . In short, this category tree has two major, unfixable problems: it is inaccurate, misleading, and often unverifiable; and it is non-defining. Video game characters are created by entire teams, so it is inaccurate to have this in the same category structure as Category:Literary characters by writer; "creator" means something different in these two uses. If there is to be a video-game related subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by creator, it should be Category:Video game characters by company, which is actually verifiable. Many of the current uses of these categories are doubtful-to-wrong - e.g. claiming all Mario series characters were created by Miyamoto (when he may well have had <1% of the input and was solely an executive producer / face for publicity, e.g. Princess Rosalina, made long after Miyamoto stopped doing in-the-trenches work), claiming various Mortal Kombat characters were made exclusively by one person (Johnny Cage was made exclusively by John Tobias, but not lead programmer Ed Boon nor motion capture actor Daniel Pesina? Doubtful, contradicted by infobox, and probably false), or crediting Vaan (Final Fantasy) exclusively to Matsuno despite major input and tweaks by the other staff of FF12 that changed the original character sketch quite a bit. This is just the tip of the iceberg: basically, "creator" is a misty and unverifiable position, and the true creator is the entire team for video games: designers, writers, artists, programmers, actors, voice actors, etc. Secondly, even if you believe that a single "creator" can be divined in some cases (more than 50% of the "influence"?? according to who? It's rare for a truly reliable, secondary source to look deeply behind the scenes to "prove" this), it's not a WP:DEFINING element anyway, unlike the literary case, and is overcategorization. This one is less strident; Jade (Beyond Good & Evil) does at least mention Michel Ancel in the lede, for example, so sometimes it seems to maybe be important enough. However, I'm personally of the "less is more" opinion on categories, and don't think this category is adding much. Also, if you are inclined to ease up the verifiability issues by interpreting "creator" as "anyone significantly involved with the game at all", then the OC concern becomes much worse, as this would then be a reason to add 10+ categories to many characters. That said, this is a secondary rationale, and the main problem is the verifiability and inclusion criteria mentioned first. SnowFire (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note, if the first reason is found compelling but not the second, this would be an argument to delete all of the categories except Category:Characters created by Markus Persson, as Minecraft was a true one-person project and thus is closer to the author-of-a-book case. I still think it should be deleted due to the secondary overcategorization concern, but my delete vote is weaker on this one, and restricting "Video games by creator" to only be for solo or essentially-solo projects would be my second choice. SnowFire (talk) 23:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all: as I rather effusively stated at that WPVG talk section, in almost every case outside of solo-developed games, no character is "created" by a single person. Vaan (Final Fantasy) may have a particularly egregious (and, more importantly, known) history of how at least five distinct people were involved in major revisions of who the character is, looks like, and acts like, but the same is true for almost every character in these categories. This just isn't how video games are made- there isn't a solo person who comes up with a character and their story and their appearance and their dialogue in a vacuum and it gets plugged into the game that five to hundreds of other people are working on. Books are (generally) solo projects. Video games are team-based projects where many, many people contribute ideas. Saying that only one person made a video game character is wrong and bad categorizing. --PresN 02:03, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - These should be "by company", not "by person", as the nom rightly illustrates. For such information, each character's article can show how and in what way an individual may have had a hand in a particular character's development or creation, which is the best place for such info, as it can be explanatory on a case-by-case basis and provide better clarity. Categories are not a good use for such things. - jc37 02:20, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:46, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others, this implies the characters were solely created by these people. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my previous reasoning at the linked discussion. Attributing the creation of video game characters to a single person does not reflect reality in 99% of cases. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nom gets to the heart of the matter: the categorization system is not well-suited for conveying the nuances of who created particular characters. I !voted the opposite way in the "Characters created by Markus Persson" discussion a week ago, but my reasoning was more against the merge proposed in that particular instance.

    I also notice there's a very similar set of categories that are subcategories of Category:Video game characters by designer. To me, the same logic seems to apply for deleting those. But maybe "designed by" is interpreted slightly differently than "created by"? Retro (talk | contribs) 13:10, 4 August 2022 (UTC) (found this discussion while browsing WT:WPVG)[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:History of Chinese Thought[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 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same rationale as below for Category:Chinese Thought. Largoplazo (talk) 22:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, same rationale as Chinese thought Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 23:06, 31 July 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:Chinese Thought[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 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's unclear to me why Chinese thought is different from Chinese philosophy, which is already a category at Category:Chinese philosophy. At the very least, the "T" in "Thought" needs to be lower-cased. Also, if Category:Confucian thought isn't already a subcat of Category:Chinese philosophy, then how is it a subcat of Chinese thought? I'm pretty sure Confucius was a Chinese thinker/philosopher. Largoplazo (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It refers to things that are not philosophy such as Ideology of the Chinese Communist Party, and Doubting Antiquity School, which are more academic ideas of China rather than philosophical ones Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 23:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it is not a defining characteristic. If anything please write an article about the concept of Chinese thought, if sufficiently sourced. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the category is diffuse to the point of uselessless. Kanguole 08:41, 1 August 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:Groups and movements involved with the 2021 US Capitol attack[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category and the ones described below need to match up with the main article title, 2021 United States Capitol attack. Love of Corey (talk) 21:25, 31 July 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:Bengali-language mass media by country[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 17:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Merging is not needed, the subcategories are in the mass media tree anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this really necessary to delete the category? This category could be populated over time. Mehedi Abedin 21:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This tree has been around for 6 weeks without being populated, and you have however long this discussion stays open to populate it. Delete per nom * Pppery * it has begun... 22:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no point in creating new container categories before there is a lot of new content. For now it just makes navigation through the category tree needlessly complicated. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:22, 1 August 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:Corynebacterineae[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The suborder Corynebacterineae is no longer in common use. The category currently only contains articles related to the genus Corynebacterium, so it should be renamed to reflect that reality. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:16, 31 July 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:Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric

Category:Pakistani wedding traditions[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) 05:05, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only one article each. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:48, 31 July 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:Theaters in Dagestan[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Theaters in Dagestan

Category:Micrococcineae[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 8#Category:Micrococcineae

Architecture by country and style[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Architecture by country and style

Category:People from Ashburnham and Penhurst[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:People from Ashburnham and Penhurst

Category:Diene complexes[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Diene complexes

Category:Dependent territory-related lists[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Lists by country and all others subcategories in Category:Categories by dependent territory. The convention in Category:Lists by country is to use "-related lists" rather than "Lists by", but a dependent territory are a type of territory, and not a specific country. Therefore it is much more correct to compare with Category:Lists by former country and Category:Lists by country. I suggest moving the container category itself, not the subcategories. BlackBony (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging @Armbrust who objected to the speedy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 31 July 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:China, IL[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT. Only three articles, unlikely to expand Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 3 articles and an image which are better served by the fact that there is a category to easily access and find them all. Also, while there might be a lower chance that more episode articles will be created for this than for The Simpsons, it isn't unlikely at all. Gonnym (talk) 22:08, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC) [reply]
Keep: per norm. Mehedi Abedin 21:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Gonnym. Mahesh Sty (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC) (Nota bene Blocked sockpuppet of Jomontgeorge, see investigation)[reply]
  • Delete -- A TV program with three series the most recent about 7 years ago. The category has three items, which is less than the normal minimum of five. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for Now 3 articles with little growth potential. No objection to recreating later if it ever gets to 5+ direct articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:11, 31 July 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 game lists by franchise[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: split into Category:Lists of video games by franchise and Category:Media lists by video games franchise. bibliomaniac15 03:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: List of downloadable English songs for the SingStar series and Harry Potter video games are not the same topic. The former belongs in a category that lists video game related topics, but not necessarily video games themselves, while the later belongs in a list of video games BY franchise. ★Trekker (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly split, there are at least two types of articles, "video games" articles and "media" articles. The first target may become Category:Media lists by video games franchise, or else maybe split further. The second target is ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming using "Video game-related lists" unless that is done in conjunction with the parent Category:Video game lists and all its other "Video game lists by X" sub-cats.
As for the split to a new sub-cat Category:Lists of video games by franchise, that sounds at first like a sensible intersection sub-cat with Category:Lists of video games. However, it may be problematic for the "List of Y media" articles, as e.g. List of Ace Attorney media is primarily a list of video games, with a few entries for publications tacked on in a tiny section at the end – so which category should it go in? Both? – Fayenatic London 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 07:05, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: Personally I feel like those lists would go in the parent category since they are certainly lists very much related to video games, but not just a list of video games, but I can understand that many others might disagree.★Trekker (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So, I am in support of the split but I'm not really sold on the naming selections for the split. Sure Category:Lists of video games by franchise is pretty clear, but Category:Video game-related lists by franchise not so much as it could easily become a magnet for simply any list that is vaguely related to video games (fake eg, "list of video game programmers that wear polyester pants") which would effectively make this other catagory a garbage dump. I propose Category:Lists of video games media by franchise and Category:Lists of video games by franchise as a more sensable name split. BcRIPster (talk) 16:23, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Two things: Using the word media in the naming of creative works, is a bad idea for all the reasons that have been noted over the years. And after seeing quite a few CFDs regarding cats with the word franchise, over the years, I'm starting to think using the word "franchise" causes more confusion in naming than it's worth. And also, I see that some of these lists include non-video game works based upon video games, as well. So not opposed to a split to Category: Lists of works based on video games, as well. - jc37 00:52, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split as per Marcocapelle. ― Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 10 August 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:Navigational physics[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is navigational physics even supposed to be? Navigational engineering, sure. Physics? No. Current this page also has zero actual pages associated with it, just one subsection. OpenScience709 (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is disputable if that one item is even directly relevant to both navigation and physics. The definition is physical, but it has nothing to do directly with navigation, just maneuvering the plane. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:13, 1 August 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.

Trade union leaders[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 as option A. ✗plicit 12:01, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A
  • Option B
Nominator's rationale: standardize naming across the tree. Earlier this discussion led to no consensus, not the least because some discussants opinionated that the whole tree should be discussed in conjunction. Well here is the whole tree. Note that trade unions are mostly limited to one or two countries anyway (two is possible in case of US+Canada). Option A would also include leaders of truly global organizations. Either option A and B are better than the status quo, I guess that is a no-brainer. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A, because it's better Zarasophos (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A for preference, but either would do. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What of an Italian trade unionist who is a leader of a French trade union? Not many I realise, but are we identifying the country where the union is and its leader or the leader's nationality? (Certainly though some locations where the nationality issue could be contentious, eg Ireland, Spain). It would appear to me the intention of the categorisation is to group leaders of trade unions by country, not nationality. Option A appears ambiguous to me, Option B more precise without the ambiguity. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is true, but there are also examples of the reverse. There are international unions (like many of those in the US and Canada as well as the IWW and more). Is the SEIU an American trade union? The IWW? If so, what about Canadian or Puerto Rican union leaders? I don't see how putting the leader of SEIU Canada in an American-only category aids navigation. That's why sorting by the nationality of the person, not where their organization is located, makes more sense to me.--User:Namiba 15:29, 11 August 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:Pārśvanātha[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with main article Parshvanatha Redtigerxyz Talk 06:15, 31 July 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:Bengali-language newspapers by country[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Bengali-language newspapers by country

Category:Pakistani business families[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: common category name that used on wikipedia. – War Wounded (talk) 09:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per norm. Mehedi Abedin 16:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be no consistent naming convention in either parent category; so I don't see the point of renaming this one. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:34, 31 July 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://cuddlysnowman.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_31&oldid=1109731527"