Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 1



Category:People involved in controversies about women in science and technology

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people involved in controversies about women in science and technology


 * Nominator's rationale: Category:Controversies about women in science and technology was recently deleted, only for it to be recreated (I have speedily deleted it) with this subcategory. As I stated in the prior discussion, "People involved in controversies..." is subjective overcategorization: what level of involvement qualifies one as "involved"? Note also that Category:People involved in controversies does not exist (and rightly so). Even if we take the view that we should start categorizing people by involvement in controversies (a WP:BLP nightmare), a triple-intersection—(a) controversies, (b) about women, (c) in the science and technology sectors—is not the right place to start, considering we do not (and should not, in my opinion) have Category:People involved in gender-related controversies or Category:People involved in science and technology controversies. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * "what level of involvement qualifies one as "involved"" rephrase as "known for" or "Criticized for (allegedly) discriminating oh having an appropriate behavior about"...? Apokrif (talk) 23:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That is not how we categorize people. We have neither Category:People known for controversies nor Category:People criticized for (allegedly) discriminating or having inappropriate behavior. While your suggested rephrasing would address the issue of subjectivity, "known for" is problematic from the viewpoint of WP:BLP and "criticized for" is non-defining. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a recreation of a just-deleted category under a different name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No. Apokrif (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. What are you trying to say by linking to a quote of yourself? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:35, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Category X != subcategory of category X. Apokrif (talk) 02:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Category X no longer exists and category X ! contains the same articles as the previously deleted category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * If "category X !" is intended to mean "subcategory of X", then this: "category X ! contains the same articles as the previously deleted category" is wrong IIRC (because Google's Ideological Echo Chamber is not in Category:People involved in controversies about women in science and technology). Apokrif (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, it contains the same articles save one. What difference does it make. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It makes a difference of 20%. Apokrif (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as subjective. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 18:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete categorizing people for "involvement" in a "Controversy" about a certain topic is just a horrible idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Per WP:G4, Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. Clearly fails both WP:OCASSOCATION and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and it's not clear how the recreation tried to address either issue. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Ben5218 (talk) 22:58, 1 February 2019 (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:Japanese-American internment books

 * 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. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:20, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Japanese-American internment books to Category:Books about the internment of Japanese Americans
 * Propose renaming Category:Japanese American internment camps to Category:Internment camps for Japanese Americans
 * Propose renaming Category:Japanese-American internment films to Category:Films about the internment of Japanese Americans
 * Nominator's rationale: It's not the books, films and camps, etc that are Japanese-American, it's the internees. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename to make more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename as better wording. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:53, 7 January 2019 (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:Sniper video 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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting sniper video games


 * Nominator's rationale: Not a "defining" characteristic or a genre established in sources. Only connection between these articles is sometimes sharing a thematic element of looking down sniper sights. There are plenty of established, alternative subcategories under Category:Shooter video games for categorizing video games that involve "video games based on and/or inspired by the art of marksmanship and sniping." czar  21:12, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete not a genre.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:USEFUL: ""There are some pages within Wikipedia that are supposed to be useful navigation tools and nothing more—disambiguation pages, categories, and redirects, for instance—so usefulness is the basis of their inclusion; for these types of pages, usefulness is a valid argument." Categorizing games by subject matter is useful; it is useful to be able to see all sniper-themed games on a single page, as WP offers no other way of doing so. Hence, I vote to keep. A cursory search on Google also turns up multiple articles on sniper games, clearly treating sniping as a defining characteristic. Phediuk (talk) 00:41, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This is not the kind of usefulness that the guideline essay speaks of. The articles in this category are not Wikipedia navigation tools like disambiguation pages, categories and redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It most certainly is the same type of usefulness that the guideline speaks of. Per WP:USEFUL again: "An argument based on usefulness can be valid if put in context. For example, 'This list brings together related topics in X and is useful for navigating that subject.'" Given that the entire purpose of categories is to be useful for navigation, and this category groups together games defined by subject matter in a way that is already demonstrably supported by RSes (cf. the "best sniper video games" linked above), I vote to keep. Phediuk (talk) 14:37, 17 January 2019 (UTC)
 * This typically belongs to the type of usefulness arguments to avoid, as is exactly the topic of the essay. Everyone trying to prevent that something is going to be deleted will say that it is useful, so it does not say anything. The question is whether the characteristic is defining or not. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
 * And here are a spate of RS articles treating sniping as a defining characteristic. Keep in mind that all sources I have linked are from separate publications, so that's 17 different RSes that demonstrably recognize the "sniper game" as a genre:
 * "The finest sniping videogames"
 * "The best sniper games on PC"
 * "While the sniper genre might not be as popular as Call of Duty or Battlefield, it provides a unique flavour of first-person shooting."
 * "Furthermore, he wants the latest title to become a new standard in the sniping genre."
 * "Although the sniper genre is intrinsically limited, it's a good match for Rebellion, who can put all their efforts into a polished experience."
 * "Silent Scope 3 takes the sniper genre to a whole new level"
 * "Sniper: Ghost Warrior 2 is leading the sniper genre at this point and it doesn’t look like they are slowing down anytime soon."
 * "Com2uS injects new life into the sniper genre with the release of Sniper vs. Sniper Online"
 * "it's no mere shooting gallery or whack-a-mole, unlike so many other touch-based sniping games"
 * "There’s a mechanic in some sniper games, including the Sniper Elite series, through which your heart rate affects the stability of your weapon when aiming down the scope."
 * "studio head Patrick Naud tells GamesIndustry.biz that it was becoming impossible to keep up with the number of free sniper games out there."
 * "Sniper games have been oddly popular on the App Store"
 * "The studio behind Sniper: Ghost Warrior 2 is no stranger to sniping games."
 * "The same goes with sniping games like the popular Sniper vs. Sniper, iSniper 3D, and Silent Scope"
 * "if you buy Sniper because you want a decent sniping game then you’ll be annoyed that the action so frequently devolves into spray-and-pray with clumsy assault rifles."
 * "Don't judge me, but I love sniping games"
 * "Rebellion's World War II-based stealth marksmanship game"; in the same article, the developer refers to its own game as "the sniping genre's elite"
 * In short, "sniper games" are both a defining characteristic and genre of game as indicated by a wide range of reliable sources. To navigate between games of an established genre is consistent with the stated "central goal" of WP:CAT to "browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics", the relevant characteristic here being the "sniper game", which many RSes recognize, as demonstrated above. Hence, we should keep the category. Phediuk (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Using two descriptors is not the same as recognition as a genre, nor as a "defining" trait. If it is recognized as a genre, surely you can find RS that discuss this genre. As of now, sniper game is a redlink. I still don't see the case for this categorization. czar  16:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The first two links (here and here) are literally overviews of the genre from RSes, and both explicitly use the word "genre"; most of the rest clearly discuss sniping games in the context of a genre, even citing other games in the same passages. Yes, it does matter when articles use "two descriptors" to consistently describe a game, as that makes those descriptors a defining characteristic (per #3 below), and the descriptors in question are the exact words "sniper genre", used together, in reference to specific games and with comparison to other games. That is an explicit recognition of the sniper genre, and not just by one, but by many RSes, as shown above. Furthermore, your argument that "sniper game" is a redlink is irrelevant; this is not a requirement for a category per WP:CATV. Categories require, according to Wikipedia guidelines at WP:CATV, these three qualities:
 * 1. "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." -- Check. There's a boatload of RSes that refer to sniping games as sniping games and place them in a sniper genre; I've demonstrated 17 different, reliable publications and highlighted the exact phrases describing the relevant games as such, including at least 2 RS overviews of the genre.
 * 2. "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles." -- Check. I'm merely reporting what the sources consistently say, which is that they recognize sniping games and a sniper genre; this justifies a category.
 * 3. "A central concept used in categorising 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." -- Check. Just about any review of a sniping game will describe it as a sniping game and there's a spate of RSes that treat sniping games as a genre and use the exact phrase "sniper genre" to describe them, as demonstrated above with RSes.
 * In short, the sniper game category is both supported by WP policy and accurately reflects consistent RS usage in coverage of sniper games, which places them in such a genre defined by a consistent body of similar games. Per WP guidelines, no master article of sniper games is required, but only the "common and consistent" treatment by RSes of "sniper game" and "sniper genre" as relevant characteristics, and, indeed, both "sniper games" and "sniper genre" are treated as such, by RSes, extensively. Phediuk (talk) 03:11, 17 February 2019 (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:Projects by year of disestablishment

 * 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 without prejudice against speedy renomination, so long as it is more complete. Pinging . ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting projects by year of disestablishment


 * Nominator's rationale: I question the utility of this category tree. There are only subcats for a few years, and those cats in turn contain only 1 to 3 articles. In comparison, the hierarchy of has at least a few dozen years where projects are listed (although very few per year). This disestablishment tree is not representative. Either we fill it properly, or we nuke it, whereby member articles would revert to the relevant  tree. — JFG talk 18:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Procedural comments, (1) the subcategories should be nominated as well, only deleting the parent category does not make sense; (2) the subcategories should be nominated for merger rather than deletion, e.g. Category:Projects disestablished in 1982 should be merged to Category:1982 disestablishments. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * What is your follow-up? Do you prefer to expand the nomination or to withdraw the nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Marcocapelle. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 3 January 2019 (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:Spacecraft by year of decommissioning

 * 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 with no prejudice against a more complete speedy renomination, same as above. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:37, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting spacecraft by year of decommissioning, space probes by year of decommissioning and their subcats.


 * Nominator's rationale: Only a couple articles were listed in the whole category tree; I moved them to more appropriate categories such as or . We should delete the whole empty tree now. — JFG talk 18:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose, this should at least be a merge nomination, and/or the subcategories should be nominated in conjunction. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:56, 12 January 2019 (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:Christian education in Norway

 * 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: withdrawn. ~ Rob 13 Talk 03:38, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting christian education in norway


 * Nominator's rationale: A duplicate of Category:Religious schools in Norway. There are 13 similar categories. 6 of them, like this, just contain the category of Religious schools in Foo.   6 have another category, of religious colleges and Universities. Australia is more complicated. I'm inclined to also delete those with only one entry.  It doesn't seem very likely that there are religious colleges in those countries, but if there are we can recreate them.   Rathfelder (talk) 15:26, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment, oppose, all countries should at least have two subcategories (for ordinary Christian schools and for seminaries). I have just added the Norwegian and German seminaries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I dont want to delete the school categories. These are mirrors of them. But if there are actually seminaries in the country then we should keep the education categories.  Happy to withdraw my proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2019 (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.

Czech small town

 * 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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Hluboká nad Vltavou‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Buildings and structures in Hluboká nad Vltavou‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Economy of Hluboká nad Vltavou‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Tourism in Hluboká nad Vltavou‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Tourist attractions in Hluboká nad Vltavou‎
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these are five categories for just 1 article, namely Ohrada Zoo. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * DeleteIt's like a Russian nesting doll with Ohrada Zoo in the middle. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:56, 26 January 2019 (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:Lithuanian churches
<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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 03:27, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Lithuanian churches to Category:Churches in Lithuania‎
 * Nominator's rationale: In line with other similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete, the category only contains a diaspora church so it clearly does not belong in Category:Churches in Lithuania‎. I do not think we have any other diaspora churches categories (unless as part of diaspora denominations). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The article could possibly be linked to Category:Lithuanian diaspora in North America. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Its already in Category:Lithuanian-American culture in New York (state). Sorry I didnt realise what this category was about. Agree we should delete it. Rathfelder (talk) 15:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Both articles are already in Category:Lithuanian Roman Catholic churches in USA. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Can I withdraw my proposal? This should be merged into Category:Lithuanian Roman Catholic churches in USA, in which both articles already sit. Rathfelder (talk) 11:10, 10 February 2019 (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.

Places of worship by city (miscellaneous countries)
<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: upmerge all per rationale of previous nomination. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Abu Dhabi to Category:Religion in Abu Dhabi, Category:Buildings and structures in Abu Dhabi and Category:Places of worship in the United Arab Emirates
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Dunedin to Category:Religion in Dunedin, Category:Buildings and structures in Dunedin and Category:Places of worship in Otago
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Erfurt to Category:Buildings and structures in Erfurt and Category:Places of worship in Thuringia
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Gaza City to Category:Buildings and structures in Gaza City and Category:Places of worship in the Gaza Strip
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Graz to Category:Buildings and structures in Graz and Category:Places of worship in Austria
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Hamilton, New Zealand to Category:Buildings and structures in Hamilton, New Zealand and Category:Places of worship in Waikato
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Innsbruck to Category:Buildings and structures in Innsbruck and Category:Places of worship in Austria
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Marseille to Category:Buildings and structures in Marseille and Category:Places of worship in France
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Mecca to Category:Buildings and structures in Mecca and Category:Places of worship in Saudi Arabia
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Novo Hamburgo to Category:Buildings and structures in Novo Hamburgo and Category:Places of worship in Rio Grande do Sul
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Rio de Janeiro (city) to Category:Buildings and structures in Rio de Janeiro (city) and Category:Places of worship in Rio de Janeiro (state)
 * Propose merging Category:Places of worship in Tenali to Category:Buildings and structures in Tenali and Category:Places of worship in Guntur district
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, the categories only contain at most 1 article next to 1 subcategory (usually a churches or mosques subcategory). This is a continuation of yesterday's nomination that was specifically about the United States; today is for the rest of the world. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge all per WP:SMALLCAT. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 00:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. SMALLCAT is for categories "will never have more than a few members" and "does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth [...] may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Many of the recent nominations citing WP:SMALLCAT as a reason for deletion are invalid applications of that guideline. WP:SMALLCAT also makes it clear that if categories are part of a wider subcategorisation scheme (in this case, places of worship by city), then it does not apply. Grutness... wha?   01:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge All While many of these cities may have other non-notable churches or may build a mosque of note, that doesn't leave much real room for growth and currently these don't aid navigation. If I'm wrong and any category gets up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Grutness, the usage of WP:SMALLCAT is misused in this nomination. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2019 (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.