Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 18 October 20 >

October 19

[edit]

Category:NWT Sport Hall of Fame inductees

[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 19:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I originally thought the redlink in the category was a typo. Then, I found that NWT Sport Hall of Fame was deleted last year. Since the main article is deleted, I don't think the category is needed. Was going to speedy request this under G8 but this isnt a category populated by a deleted template, hence this nomination. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:16, 19 October 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:People of United Empire Loyalist descent

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Category:People of United Empire Loyalist descent

Category:Murree District

[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 19:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 page in the category and will likely only ever have 1 page (would've CSD'd but didn't see any valid criteria) ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:02, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Murree is most famous tourist attraction of Pakistan. Many page from Category:Murree will add to Category:Murree District. Take a little breath Bro User:Blaze Wolf. --AAonlyA (talk) 19:30, 19 October 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:The Great British Bake Off winners

[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 to Category:The Great British Bake Off contestants. No consensus on whether the redirects in the category should be kept or removed. bibliomaniac15 03:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I appreciate the distinction between "winners" and "contestants", or rather sub-categorizing "winners" as a child category of "contestants". However, most of the pages are rather redirects mainly as result of merging the winner articles into List of The Great British Bake Off finalists, which I created a year ago. Also, there are very few notable runners-up and eliminated contestants having their own articles in the "contestants" category. As I figured, filling the "contestants" category with winners would help minimize the distinction between Bake Off "contestants" and "winners". George Ho (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and remove the redirects (also from the parent category), having redirects in a category to an article that is also in that same category is not helpful at all for finding more information about a topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Both these are ultimately Performance by performer categories, which are not normally allowed. The issue is that in this case the performers are generally notable for nothing else. Do we need either? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:54, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 19 October 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.

Wikipedians interested in redlinked sports teams

[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 20:00, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Unclear how these categories can possibly help collaboration when there isn't even an article on the topic to which they refer. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:52, 19 October 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.

Wikipedians interested in Esports teams

[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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one leaf category in this entire tree. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:43, 19 October 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:People from Ulyanovsk Oblast

[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 all. bibliomaniac15 03:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 or 2 articles in each. Rathfelder (talk) 15:10, 19 October 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:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience

[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 20:10, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLIST. There are many organizations which make lists and there is no reason to single out Amnesty International's as defining. User:Namiba 13:44, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to nominate the 72 subcategories? You cant delete this on its own. Rathfelder (talk) 15:18, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They have all been nominated.--User:Namiba 17:36, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the authority of Amnesty International in the field of prisoners of conscience is comparable to the authority of Nobel prizes in the field of awards. For Nobel prizes we allow award categories by exception, so should we allow AI categories in this other field by exception. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Nobel Prize is an award. Being on an organization's list is not. That's a major difference.--User:Namiba 15:00, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My argument is not about awards, it is about making very rare exceptions. Sort of a WP:IAR reasoning. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I believe this came up during the failed suggestion to delete the Political Prisoners category sometime ago, that only "designated" ones like these categories should be allowed to exist. I disagreed then. But here I think being identified by Amnesty and being made part of a campaign is actually defining for some historical political prisoners who might otherwise not have become widely known. Dan Carkner (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose because it's a very useful category. Fad Ariff (talk) 11:49, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid. Usefulness is entirely subjective.--User:Namiba 13:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If we had a robust category for "Prisoners of conscience held by foo-land", I would have supported a proposal to merge them to a more general category, but we do not. There are certainly other bodies that seek to identify those imprisoned for their views (for example on religion). Keston Institute did this for Christian victims of communism. Until someone can come up with a robust alternative, we need to keep this series. At present the only parent is a general one relating to prisoners of foo-land, which does not distinguish between criminals and political or religious dissidents. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 23 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Being listed by Amnesty International is politically significant internationally and widely quoted. Bigwig7 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per previous explanations, I didn’t even know about Amnesty International until now, but even I recognise the significance of these categories since reading up about this organisation. — Mugtheboss (talk) 15:41, 27 October 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.

Wildfire seasons

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Wildfire seasons

Category:Medieval Ottoman military personnel

[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 20:04, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary layer holding only C14 and C15 Ottoman sub-cats. These can be held directly in the "medieval Islamic world" parent, as I have just done in e.g. Category:Viziers of the medieval Islamic world. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 19 October 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:NATO member countries and the Russo-Ukrainian war

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Category:NATO member countries and the Russo-Ukrainian war

Category:Thai national heritage films

[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. bibliomaniac15 00:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination from deletion review which I closed as relist. Prior Cfd is here. Original nominator Bearcat (talk · contribs)'s rationale: WP:TOPTEN violation. Although there's no head article to explain exactly what a "Thai national heritage film" is, and most of the articles filed here provide absolutely no context for their inclusion either, I've been able to sort out from one of the articles (Bad Genius) that the Thai Film Archive releases an annual list of films from the past year that it has deemed culturally or artistically significant -- basically Canada's Top Ten, but for Thailand instead of Canada. Accordingly, a properly sourced article that listed the inducted films would be fine, but we don't categorize for inclusion in other organizations' proprietary and copyrighted ranking lists. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 01:42, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, Marcocapelle, Orientls, Qwerfjkl, Paul 012, Frank Anchor, SmokeyJoe, Robert McClenon, and Liz: Courtesy pinging all participants of prior Cfd or DRV. My apologies if the notification is not desired. I will have no further role in the discussion. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 02:02, 19 October 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_October_19&oldid=1125649120"