Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 30



Category:Far-left political parties

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting far-left political parties


 * Nominator's rationale: The same issue is a constant problem across 100s of infoboxes. There are no universal, global standards of the left-right axis, and categorizing articles along the axis is a dead end. The category merely invites to edit warring, and does not help in structuring the encyclopedia. Soman (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Tentative keep. In theory, I agree with the nom @.  But in practice, these subcats of Category:Political parties by ideology seem to me to be relatively stable, largely because the infoboxes allow multiple ideological labels for each party rather than enforcing a single label. Does the nom have examples of instability? And above all, why single out Category:Far-left political parties?  Why not also delete Category:Far-right political parties and Category:Fascist parties and Category:Populist parties and Category:Liberal parties and dozens of other subcats of Category:Political parties by ideology?  If the left-right axis is a bad basis for categorizing articles, why delete one end of the scale rather than the whole scale? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, WP:OTHERSTUFF. There are a number of problems with categorizing parties, and generally the self-identification is the only reasonable standard. Categories like this will only continue the endless revert wars that already plague the infoboxes. Category:Fascist parties should only be populated with parties that self-identify as fascist. --Soman (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Reply
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF is not applicable here. See WP:OTHERCATSEXIST.
 * Policy is that we use secondary reliable sources, not primary sources. Your suggestion would lead us to categorise the National Socialist German Workers' Party as socialist rather than fascist.
 * What endless revert wars? (I asked before. Do you actually have examples, or not?) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per the argument of BrownHairedGirl. Dimadick (talk) 09:24, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
 * keep per the well stated argument of BrownHairedGirl. Hmains (talk) 17:13, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Question doesn't this largely overlap with Category:Communist parties, i.e. do we really need Category:Far-left political parties while we already have Category:Communist parties? Note that this question similarly applies to far right. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 4 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Procurement practices

 * 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: Symbol move vote.svg Relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 19. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Procurement practices to Category:Procurement
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it is not clear how this category distinguishes itself from its parent category, the large amount of articles in the parent category also have a very practical character. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:00, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep separate. There is no advantage to merging into a category with 30 other specific subcategories, while the phrase "procurement practices" is a well-known business term about various procedures used in formal purchasing of materials. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It may be a well-known phrase but that doesn't solve the problem. How should editors decide whether an article should be in Category:Procurement practices or in Category:Procurement? Inclusion criteria are entirely unclear. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. I can't see any criteria to distinguish between Category:Procurement practices and Category:Procurement. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.

Feature films by country

 * 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 each Category:CountryName feature films to Category:CountryName films‎. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:26, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting feature films by country


 * Propose deleting american feature films‎


 * Propose deleting cuban feature films‎


 * Propose deleting french feature films‎


 * Propose deleting indian feature films‎


 * Propose deleting japanese feature films‎


 * Propose deleting swedish feature films‎


 * Propose deleting vietnamese feature films‎


 * Propose deleting feature films‎


 * Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion these categories are not needed, as all films are implied to be feature-length, unless they are short films.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete all as redundant to "Category: films". When we say just "films" on Wikipedia, we mean feature films. Otherwise we would specify if it is a short film. Until there is a consensus to clarify "feature film" all the time, there is no need to have these overly specific categories. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Upmerge – these should be upmerged to Category:American films‎ etc in case films have not been categorised in both. Category:Feature films should also be added (delete). Oculi (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 19:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Also delete Category:Feature films. Hoverfish Talk 19:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well spotted - I've added that to the list. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 20:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Completely redundant. Sock   ( tock talk)  21:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --- The Old Jacobite The '45 00:00, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant. Also largely unused, given that the American category, the most populated one here, only has five entries in it despite there being closer to 50,000 American feature films with Wikipedia articles. Note that I've also nominated the parent categories and, which will become a rolling succession of emptied categories if and when these are deleted, for deletion as well — although I've listed them for a separate discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 5 because the argument against them is slightly different from the argument against these. Bearcat (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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 based on Pachelbel's Canon

 * 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 both, and possibly listify. To assist anyone who wants to create lists, I have made a list of the pages currently in each category:
 * Category:Works based on Pachelbel's Canon at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 30
 * Category:Popular songs based on classical works at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 30. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose converting to list:
 * works based on pachelbel's canon
 * popular songs based on classical works
 * Nominator's rationale: There was a time, when I was so broken-hearted. Because I tried to categorize a certain song as being quite obviously influenced by Pachelbel but this was reverted as vandalism. My theory is that membership in categories like these is based less upon the degree of observable derivation, and more upon whether the fans allow it to be mentioned. ―cobaltcigs 10:56, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak delete- Unclear membership criteria and lots of OR problems. What makes a song "based on" a classical work? Does it need to recognizably have the same melody, or is it OK if it has a completely different tune but the same chord progression? This is unworkable. Reyk YO! 07:01, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Providing the inclusion is reliably referenced in the article and not subject to an editor's opinion. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:57, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: The phenomenon is certainly real. Check out this video. Categories probably aren't the best way to handle it. ―cobaltcigs 16:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Listify. I think that a well-referenced grouping of such works is useful and not just because I'm a fan of Brian Eno's Discreet Music) — but a list is probably a better way of doing that, not to mention that it's easier to ensure a list is well referenced than a category. Grutness... wha?   03:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Films that break fourth wall

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:50, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting films that break fourth wall


 * Nominator's rationale: Ignoring the poor English, this is non-defining and trivial. A similar category was deleted previously.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:10, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per the rationals (which I cannot improve on) from the previous CFD. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 13:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and the previous discussion. --- The Old Jacobite </b><i style="font-family: Courier New;">The '45</i> 15:06, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Hoverfish Talk 16:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep I do not understand what bother can give this category? It has reason to exist exactly like Category:Films using computer-generated imagery. If the problem is the name, the name can be changed. The previous cancellation should not be taken in support of this cancellation because in that case it was a clear punishment against the author of the category, considered unpleasant in his work. --Kasper2006 (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, this is nonsense, we do not punish editors for unpleasant behavior by deleting categories that they create. In the previous discussion there were substantive arguments in favor of deleting the category, that is the reason why it got deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per the precedent set at this family of AfD’s. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 04:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Films are not defined by every individual narrative technique that happens to be present in their scripts. It's valid for our concept article about the fourth wall to list some particularly noteworthy examples (though trying to list every example that happened at all would just be WP:TRIVIA), but it's not a useful basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 16:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: Phase II (fan series)
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting wikipedians who like star trek


 * Nominator's rationale: My first choice is deletion due to an overly narrow scope. This is for users who like a Star Trek fan series - There's only one article that users in the category could reasonably be expected to collaborate on (even if we assume those in a "who like" category have a collaborative intent, which is highly debatable), Star Trek: New Voyages. My second choice is to rename the category to match the article title - Category:Wikipedians who like Star Trek: New Voyages. VegaDark (talk) 05:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * 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:Wikipedians who use Ecosia
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting wikipedians who use ecosia


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that does not foster encyclopedic collaboration. Extensive precedent to delete other "search engine" categories, see here. It does not help benefit the encyclopedia to know which search engine a particular Wikipedian prefers to use. VegaDark (talk) 05:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)


 * It can help to know which search engine someone uses – User talk:TenPoundHammer/Archive 14 Thincat (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It can help to know this for an individual in very rare, specific cases such as the one you cite. it cannot help to group said users in a category, however - It is common to conflate the idea that certain information being useful to know means that it useful to group by way of a user category. VegaDark (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I was merely passing a remark because I disagreed with a lot of what was said in the nomination. I wasn't suggesting what should happen about the category. Thincat (talk) 10:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


 * 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.