Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 27



Category:Open world racing video games
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 17%23Category:Open world racing video games

Category:Political controversies in Australia

 * 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. MER-C 09:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting category


 * Nominator's rationale: It is in the nature of politics to be controversial, therefore adding individual people, events, laws and debates to this category is redundant at best and POV at worst. Better to add genuine scandals (where there are credible allegations of wrongdoing) to Category:Political scandals in Australia and remove this category entirely. Mqst north (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - this was renamed by cfd (Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_1) long ago, is part of, parent of , and has the subcat . The nominator had removed all parent categories for some reason. Oculi (talk) 13:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - as Oculi notes, political controversies is a well established category by countries. A matter is controversial because there are differing POV. Describing something as a scandal involves a moral judgment that is absent from many of the matters in the category. Another aspect is that controversies are often resolved. Eg it is difficult to see how 2017–18 Australian parliamentary eligibility crisis involved moral wrongdoing - whether they were aware or should have been aware of the dual citizenship was irrelevant to the application of the constitution, while for some the controversy was resolved in their favour. I have not seen any reliable source that characterises it as a scandal. Similarly History wars are a matter of political controversy that involve no moral judgment on any side of the debate. Is there a reliable source that characterises the argument as a scandal? Find bruce (talk) 00:33, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - for the reasons given by Oculi and Find bruce. Also, everyday political controversies would not become the subject of an article, because not notable:  WP:N.  The nomination really doesn't identify a problem.  Wikiain (talk) 00:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep for reasons already given, its a well established category and part of a larger global set. Yes politics by definition can be controversial, the criteria is those incidents that go beyond the realm of just day to day politics... Recommend WP:SNOW for this noting that there appears to be  a pointy part and forum shopping to this nomination, given it was started after a clear consensus had already developed. Gnangarra 02:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per above - specially User Gnangarra - and the issue of forum shopping. There is an AFD as well. JarrahTree 04:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all good points made above Kerry (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The editors who have posted above may wish to consider why it is that there is no article for political controversy, except in that there's a redirect to the concept of political scandal. This strongly suggests that "political controversy" is not a very firm or well-defined concept. However "well-established" Find bruce may think the Political controversies by country subcategories are, it's worth noting that there are 52 countries with a "political scandals" category but only 19 with a "political controversies" category (some of which don't contain much beyond the country's political scandals subcategory).
 * The fact that no-one is clear on what is and what is not a "controversy" article is relevant to Wikiain's question of what the problem is. Where a concept is not well-defined, personal bias becomes a big factor. And this can be seen if you actually look at what goes into these controversy-by-country categories. Editors tend to selectively tag politicians, laws and projects they personally regard as problematic. Yet virtually every politician, law or (major) project involves an element of controversy. At best, the categories are incomplete; at worst, they reflect individual editors' POV.
 * My view is that "political controversy" is, for the purposes of article categorisation, a tautology. Issues enter the realm of politics because they are controversial and therefore can only be resolved by reference to power. Conversely, the nature of political competition renders the people and decisions associated with it controversial. Take, for example, Australia's History wars. These have their genesis in academic disagreement: but prolonged controversy on any topic, even one outside the normal realm of electoral politics, becomes political by its nature, as participants compete for power to shape the debate.
 * Finally, Oculi suggests that the scandals-by-country categories fit within the hierarchy of controversies categories. In fact, there is an existing global hierarchy of political scandal categories independent of the controversy categories, and these would continue to exist. Mqst north (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Nominator makes fair points that all politics is controversial (therefore tautological) and that we do not have a main article about the topic. However it is no good procedure to delete just one country category on its own. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 29 July 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:Kingdom of Sarawak

 * 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. MER-C 09:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Kingdom of Sarawak to Category:Raj of Sarawak
 * Nominator's rationale: Mainly technical request per common use as mentioned by this user.  Night Lantern halo? 10:25, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support to match main article. The rulers are commonly referred to as the white rajahs.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 30 July 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:Buildings and structures in Carora

 * 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 09:49, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Carora to Category:Carora and Category:Buildings and structures in Lara (state)
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles in the category and the article Carora does not suggest there is a lot of expansion possible. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:06, 27 July 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:Amusement park attractions introduced in 2022

 * 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. Both Category:Amusement rides introduced in 2020 and Category:Amusement rides introduced in 2021 have been discussed in a more recent CfD which came to a consensus to keep and rename. The third category (excluding parent Category:Buildings and structures completed in 2021) is already emptied and will be speedily deleted. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting amusement park attractions introduced in 2022


 * also category and category


 * category Doug Weller  talk 12:13, 8 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Nominator's rationale: Time travel? Doug Weller  talk 16:52, 7 June 2019 (UTC)


 * At least rename to Category:Amusement park attractions scheduled to open in 2022 because 2022 is in the future, not in the past. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Support alt rename. However such categories should not exist unless they have some certainty of delivery per WP:CRYSTAL.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Once again, a nominated category has already been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 04:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * The amusement ride categories were renamed per Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 16. MER-C 19:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Renaming is no longer needed after the other CfD discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 28 July 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:Tom and Jerry short films by year 1940 to 1956

 * 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:Tom and Jerry short films. Timrollpickering (Talk) 09:48, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Tom and Jerry short films by year from 1940 to 1956 e.g. Category:1944 Tom and Jerry short films created by a now banned/retired contributor, they could be kept by adding categories (none at present apart from Category:Tom and Jerry short films). So for 1944 adding Category:1944 short films, Category:1944 animated films and Category:1940s American animated films to the year category. But I am not sure if anything is gained as the few articles on films I have checked seem to be in these categories already. So either delete these categories or upmerge to ??? in case a few articles have one or two categories missing? Hugo999 (talk) 05:11, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment, if kept it would be sensible to diffuse Category:Tom and Jerry short films entirely, by adding year categories beyond 1956. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment See Tom and Jerry filmography. The original series by the Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer cartoon studio was released from 1940 to 1958. The revival by Gene Deitch was released from 1961 to 1962. The third series of short films, supervised by Chuck Jones, was released from 1963 to 1967. After 1967, the characters have relatively few appearances in short films (one in 2001, one in 2005, and one in 2014). Dimadick (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, Have added Category:1957 Tom and Jerry short films and Category:1958 Tom and Jerry short films in a revised format if these categories from 1940 on should be retained, and I could revise the categories for earlier years (no need for the single films in 2001 & 2005). Hugo999 (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Upmerge all to Category:Tom and Jerry short films. Helps in finding the short one may want to look at (even if selected randomly), while Tom and Jerry filmography provides reader with a succinct chronology. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:38, 29 July 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:People of the Year Awards winners

 * 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 09:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people of the year awards winners


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, the award is either mentioned in passing or not mentioned at all in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:06, 27 July 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:Cultural depictions of the Yongle Emperor

 * 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. MER-C 09:40, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Cultural depictions of the Yongle Emperor to Category:Cultural depictions of Chinese monarchs
 * Propose merging Category:Cultural depictions of Paduka Pahala to Category:Cultural depictions of Filipino people
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, both categories contain the same one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, these small categories are not useful for navigation. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:39, 4 August 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.

Antidepressants by ring number
<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: no consensus. MER-C 09:34, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deletion Category:Tricyclic antidepressants and Category:Tetracyclic antidepressants
 * Nominator's rationale: I think that the categories are a trivial intersection between antidepressants and tricyclic or tetracyclic compounds. There are lots of chemicals with three or four rings that have a variety of effects in the body, so creating categories for the antidepressants that happen to have three or four rings seems unnecessary and trivial. I would be open to creating categories for specific, chemically-related, tricylic classes of antidepressants, like how Desipramine, Lofepramine, Depramine, Azipramine, Clomipramine, Ciclopramine, Metapramine, Cianopramine, and Imipramine are all dibenzazepines, but I suspect that all of the articles in the categories are already also categorized as to the chemical classes that they fall into (The nine articles that I listed were each already in Category:Dibenzazepines.), and the two categories that I have nominated for deletion do not appear to be about specific chemical classes of antidepressants. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 03:02, 12 July 2019 (UTC)}}

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Question shouldn't the categories be merged to Category:Antidepressants rather than deleted? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. I thought about their chemical structure but not the fact that they're antidepressants. I don't know how I committed that blunder. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:04, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:06, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Both are adequately populated. They are respectively subcats of Category:Tricyclic compounds etc, so that deletion is liable to prove disruptive.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. The terms "tricyclic antidepressant" and "tetracyclic antidepressant" are commonly used medical terms to classify antidepressants.  This is not just something made up to categorize Wikipedia articles.   See for example, this article from the Mayo Clinic: https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/depression/in-depth/antidepressants/art-20046983
 * I just went through the members of Category:Tricyclic antidepressants, and I found that out of 59 members, 15 are not even tricyclic. Tampramine, Lofepramine, Maprotiline, Mariptiline, Naranol, Octriptyline, Opipramol, Pipofezine, Amoxapine, Fluperlapine, Hepzidine, Homopipramol, and 7-Hydroxyamoxapine are tetracyclic; Triazolopyridine is dicyclic; and Quinupramine is pentacyclic. Most of these fifteen seem to have the same or a similar three-ring structure of Dibenzocycloheptene with another ring or two connected somehow, so it makes more sense to have categories for individual classes of tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants, as I proposed earlier. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:02, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Categories for individual classes of tricyclic and tetracyclic antidepressants: that can be done regardless the outcome of this discussion, can't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, but these can individually be categories of Category:Tricyclic compounds and Category:Antidepressants. Grouping together a group of genuinely chemically similar compounds whose chemical similarity causes them to have a similar effect on a particular receptor or group of receptors in the brain makes sense. Grouping together a group of compounds that perform a similar neurological action makes sense. Finding a trivial similarity in chemical structure among some of the members of the second group then grouping those together does not make sense. The first is like making a category for a particular monarchical dynasty whose members were related to each other and therefore had physical similarities. The second is like creating Category:Kings. The third is like creating Category:Red-haired kings. The third is a trivial intersection. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:07, 15 August 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:King of Italy
<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: merge. MER-C 09:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:King of Italy to Category:Kings of Italy (1861–1946)
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, both categories are apparently meant for the modern kings of Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Same scope. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:40, 29 July 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.

Kings of Italy
<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. MER-C 09:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:11th-century kings of Italy
 * Propose deleting Category:12th-century kings of Italy
 * Propose deleting Category:13th-century kings of Italy
 * Propose deleting Category:14th-century kings of Italy
 * Propose deleting Category:15th-century kings of Italy
 * Propose deleting Category:16th-century kings of Italy
 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. After Otto I became King of Italy in 961 and Holy Roman Emperor in 962, the kingdom of Italy became fully integrated in the Holy Roman Empire and "King of Italy" was a mere duplicate title of the Holy Roman Emperors/German kings. In many articles about Holy Roman Emperors the title King of Italy is not even mentioned in the main text. There is only one exception, Arduin of Ivrea, who ruled independently 1002-1014, but he is already directly in Category:Kings of Italy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose This would remove them from the subcategories of Category:Italian people by century. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
 * They should be removed, since they were German people. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Not a spaghetti-swirler among them; they were sausage-suckers all. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment -- If they are not deleted, they should be made redirects to Holy Roman Emperor categories. However I do not think we need them at all: delete for preference: we cannot allow categories for every subsidiary title.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 30 July 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: French Cameroons
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 17%23Category: French Cameroons