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.
I think if you did the split, wouldn’t the “managed by” and “owned by” just be sub-cats of the main categories for the management companies. Why delete them? That seems like an un-needed step.
SecretName101 (
talk) 21:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've taken the liberty to strike out
Category:Central Group, which I've removed from the category as it was miscategorised. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 21:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, having categories for companies with multiple articles about their subsidiaries is usual practice. These are no different to the
BP,
NatWest Group or
Nike categories. Some may need tweaking as suggested by
Paul 012, but to delete would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Untreegoo (
talk) 03:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
OK my understanding of the above reactions and of the previous discussion in conjunction is that the categories should be purged from shopping malls but not deleted.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Looking at the previous discussion, I'm thinking
Johnpacklambert's main argument, that malls change management company a lot, might be skewed towards an American-centric view of the industry. Briefly looking at the American categories, the members indeed do not appear to share a strong association with the companies. But in contrast, looking at e.g.
Category:SM Prime (based in the Philippines) and
Category:Central Pattana (Thailand), all members share the name and branding and most at least appear to have been built from scratch by the respective companies. I would oppose purging such categories. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 07:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, except maybe
Category:Shopping malls by management company. It makes sense to categorize properties notable enough to have articles about them by their owner/manager. I'm not wedded to a category that brings all these management companies together, though and would be OK with deleting that one. The categories can still be categorized under businesses, organizations, real estate companies, retailers or what have you.
Jahaza (
talk) 02:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Copying my comments from the previous discussion, which still apply:
WP:TNT categorising any property "...by management company". There is a huge difference between "by company", and "by management company". Each of the
Category:Buildings and structures by company may also have one or more management companies managing the site. A management company could be anything from a service provider (janitorial, landscaping, etc), to a rent collector, to essentially being a landlord, and more. The term is just too broad. See also
Property management. If someone would like to list malls by who they were built by, please check out
Lists of shopping malls. - jc37 10:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
That said, as has been noted above, some of the nominated categories are broader in inclusion than just management company, so in those cases, Purge - jc37 09:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Purge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 22:25, 14 November 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:Teleiodini stubs
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.
Nominator's rationale: Moved here from
WP:TFD, where the rationale was All former members of this tribe have been moved to Litini.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 21:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC).
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 22:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:08, 18 November 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:BBC Light Programmes
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.
Nominator's rationale: It looks weird, but it's more accurate as the name of the station is
BBC Light Programme.
Fuddle (
talk) 03:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose as the proposed title it just duplicating the same word, the current category title is more concise and easier to understand.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 10:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The capitalization helps differentiate the two meanings of same word, but I'd be fine with either suggestion as long as we're OK with breaking the pattern of
Category:BBC Radio programmes. BTW, we'll eventually have the same problem with
BBC Third Programme.
Fuddle (
talk) 00:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, the current name is not accurate.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support – Makes sense and follows the existing category tree naming structure. Duplication of the word doesn't matter. If there were a band called "The Songs", we could have a category called "The Songs songs".
MClay1 (
talk) 01:48, 22 November 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:Database templates
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 category consists only of one template (and has been this way for a while, since at least
this discussion in 2020).
The category name is confusing – it's not a topical category for templates related to
databases, it is for templates that are a kind of database lookup. —
andrybak (
talk) 21:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, category is too small.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:43, 15 November 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, by default a family category contains the articles about the family members, there is no obvious reason to split this in two categories in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge both to
Category:Karatia Zamindari family. Only the head of the family would be a Zamindar. The article on the position will make a good main article for the family category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I am fine with Peterkingiron's suggestion to rename the target. I tagged that category too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:46, 15 November 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.
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 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:Epic 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.
Nominator's rationale: The "epic" genre is not one typically associated with video games, and not a common descriptor that games are associated with (with the exception of The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim and perhaps a few other outliers). As such this category is unlikely to be useful and any effort to populate it will result in disputes as we cannot reliably source the categorizing of many games as "epics". silvia (
inquire within) 17:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It isn't something a reliable source would use to describe a video game in most cases, at least not in the "Tolkien novel" sense.
WPscattert/c 18:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete Absolutely not neutral. Cat is opinionated.
PerryPerryDTalk To Me 04:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - too vague and subjective to help a reader, particularly in this industry.
Sergecross73msg me 18:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not a category by any means, video games that are...
epic? Video games in which the player character picks up a weapon to fight the big bad? Not a
WP:CATDEF.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 01:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Creator is a CU confirmed sockpuppet. --
ferret (
talk) 00:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not a valid video game genre and too subjective to have a category.
TheDeviantPro (
talk) 00:04, 16 November 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:Jacopo Sansovino Buildings
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 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 interested in alphabetizing
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.
Delete as with all the other alphabetising junk.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 17:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 07:16, 18 November 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:WikiProject Materials science members
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.
From
User talk:FuzzyMagma: Pppery thanks for letting me. I am working at a materials science institute and I was aiming to train volunteers and organise Edit-a-thon to write articles about materials science as part of making a
WikiProject Materials science.Sorry i did not get a chance to start neither but hopefully i will be the beginning of next year.
FuzzyMagma (
talk) 17:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)* Pppery *it has begun... 17:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, this will only work after the project has seriously taken off.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete for now, if the WikiProject is created in future, then this could be re-created then. But until such a time as the associated WikiProject is well established, no need for the members category.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 17:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete for now until the wikiproject materializes --
Lenticel(
talk) 07:17, 18 November 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.
Astronomical objects by source of name
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.
Sorry, I got busy linking and tagging all the categories that I forgot to mention that. The 2019 nomination was withdrawn by the OP, and the 2018 uses faulty arguments for keep. Many of them say that it helps to search, but it doesn't. "Useful" categories would be planets by planet type, by type of star, by existence of atmosphere, by suspected habitability, by distance ranges from Earth, etc; but which use is there in grouping planets named after comic book characters? Another claims that the name is significant because the article discuss it, but that's not the way it works. The guideline means that we categorize things for what they are, not by aspects of its name. A
Rose by any other name would still belong in "Garden plants" and "Rosoideae", but not in "flowers whose name starts with R".
Cambalachero (
talk) 13:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, these objects have nothing substantively in common.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep – Seems useful to me. I'm not sure what the benefit is to deleting them. I understand that
WP:SHAREDNAME is a thing but why is it important? The names of astrononomical objects seem to be important and defining. It's a well-made category tree and doesn't present any issues. I'm of the opinion that if you don't like a category tree, don't use it. Users who are into astronomy appear to have gone to great effort to create it, so they must find it useful. Deleting it wouldn't be a huge loss though as the content is available in articles and lists. I created a few of the categories but only to round out the missing pieces in the category tree; I didn't start it and I'm not attached to it.
MClay1 (
talk) 09:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
"Usefulness" is an ambiguous concept. E.g. it entirely escapes me how it can be "useful" to navigate from one minor planet named after a plant to another minor planet named after a completely different plant.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I was addressing usefulness not likeability.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Categories are not only useful for navigation. They provide useful collections of articles. You could get most of the same function from a list, but I prefer to simplicity of the category format. Usefulness will vary from user to user. I just don't see the point in taking something away from other users. This category tree is not problematic, just a bit niche.
MClay1 (
talk) 01:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete exactly what
WP:SHAREDNAME says, these have nothing in common other than a shared name.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 13:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:SHAREDNAME says: "Avoid categorizing by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject". It was argued in previous CfDs that it is a defining characteristic, and I think that argument should be addressed this time before deleting.
MClay1 (
talk) 01:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
So what is the defining characteristic that they share apart from the name? O sure, they are minor planets. But the articles are already in other Minor planets categories too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I have already addressed that non-argument in an earlier message. The only argument advanced to justify it is that the article discussed the origin of the name somewhere, but that's not what being a "defining characteristic" means. Rule of thumb: let's say that the subject of the article changed its name to "Foo". Would we need to make a substantial rewrite to the article, other than move it and in the "reason of the name" section or passage?
Cambalachero (
talk) 14:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I find these incredibly helpful in their current format. Please do not remove them.
Darque Fyre (
talk) 09:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The above comment has been moved here from a
duplicate section created in error by a new editor. –
FayenaticLondon 13:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Can you please elaborate? Why do you find them so useful?
Cambalachero (
talk) 18:39, 17 November 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:Kickboxing stubs
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.
Delete per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
SAAeh (
talk) 04:48, 18 November 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.
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.
I think if you did the split, wouldn’t the “managed by” and “owned by” just be sub-cats of the main categories for the management companies. Why delete them? That seems like an un-needed step.
SecretName101 (
talk) 21:12, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment: I've taken the liberty to strike out
Category:Central Group, which I've removed from the category as it was miscategorised. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 21:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, having categories for companies with multiple articles about their subsidiaries is usual practice. These are no different to the
BP,
NatWest Group or
Nike categories. Some may need tweaking as suggested by
Paul 012, but to delete would be throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Untreegoo (
talk) 03:09, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
OK my understanding of the above reactions and of the previous discussion in conjunction is that the categories should be purged from shopping malls but not deleted.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Looking at the previous discussion, I'm thinking
Johnpacklambert's main argument, that malls change management company a lot, might be skewed towards an American-centric view of the industry. Briefly looking at the American categories, the members indeed do not appear to share a strong association with the companies. But in contrast, looking at e.g.
Category:SM Prime (based in the Philippines) and
Category:Central Pattana (Thailand), all members share the name and branding and most at least appear to have been built from scratch by the respective companies. I would oppose purging such categories. --
Paul_012 (
talk) 07:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep, except maybe
Category:Shopping malls by management company. It makes sense to categorize properties notable enough to have articles about them by their owner/manager. I'm not wedded to a category that brings all these management companies together, though and would be OK with deleting that one. The categories can still be categorized under businesses, organizations, real estate companies, retailers or what have you.
Jahaza (
talk) 02:16, 7 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Copying my comments from the previous discussion, which still apply:
WP:TNT categorising any property "...by management company". There is a huge difference between "by company", and "by management company". Each of the
Category:Buildings and structures by company may also have one or more management companies managing the site. A management company could be anything from a service provider (janitorial, landscaping, etc), to a rent collector, to essentially being a landlord, and more. The term is just too broad. See also
Property management. If someone would like to list malls by who they were built by, please check out
Lists of shopping malls. - jc37 10:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)reply
That said, as has been noted above, some of the nominated categories are broader in inclusion than just management company, so in those cases, Purge - jc37 09:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Purge? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 22:25, 14 November 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:Teleiodini stubs
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.
Nominator's rationale: Moved here from
WP:TFD, where the rationale was All former members of this tribe have been moved to Litini.
YorkshireExpat (
talk) 21:01, 30 October 2022 (UTC).
Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 16:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 22:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:08, 18 November 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:BBC Light Programmes
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.
Nominator's rationale: It looks weird, but it's more accurate as the name of the station is
BBC Light Programme.
Fuddle (
talk) 03:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 17:43, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose as the proposed title it just duplicating the same word, the current category title is more concise and easier to understand.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 10:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The capitalization helps differentiate the two meanings of same word, but I'd be fine with either suggestion as long as we're OK with breaking the pattern of
Category:BBC Radio programmes. BTW, we'll eventually have the same problem with
BBC Third Programme.
Fuddle (
talk) 00:25, 13 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 22:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, the current name is not accurate.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:40, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support – Makes sense and follows the existing category tree naming structure. Duplication of the word doesn't matter. If there were a band called "The Songs", we could have a category called "The Songs songs".
MClay1 (
talk) 01:48, 22 November 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:Database templates
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 category consists only of one template (and has been this way for a while, since at least
this discussion in 2020).
The category name is confusing – it's not a topical category for templates related to
databases, it is for templates that are a kind of database lookup. —
andrybak (
talk) 21:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, category is too small.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:43, 15 November 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, by default a family category contains the articles about the family members, there is no obvious reason to split this in two categories in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:02, 6 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Merge both to
Category:Karatia Zamindari family. Only the head of the family would be a Zamindar. The article on the position will make a good main article for the family category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 19:04, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I am fine with Peterkingiron's suggestion to rename the target. I tagged that category too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:46, 15 November 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.
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 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:Epic 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.
Nominator's rationale: The "epic" genre is not one typically associated with video games, and not a common descriptor that games are associated with (with the exception of The Elder Scrolls: Skyrim and perhaps a few other outliers). As such this category is unlikely to be useful and any effort to populate it will result in disputes as we cannot reliably source the categorizing of many games as "epics". silvia (
inquire within) 17:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It isn't something a reliable source would use to describe a video game in most cases, at least not in the "Tolkien novel" sense.
WPscattert/c 18:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Strong Delete Absolutely not neutral. Cat is opinionated.
PerryPerryDTalk To Me 04:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - too vague and subjective to help a reader, particularly in this industry.
Sergecross73msg me 18:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. Not a category by any means, video games that are...
epic? Video games in which the player character picks up a weapon to fight the big bad? Not a
WP:CATDEF.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 01:30, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment Creator is a CU confirmed sockpuppet. --
ferret (
talk) 00:01, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete - Not a valid video game genre and too subjective to have a category.
TheDeviantPro (
talk) 00:04, 16 November 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:Jacopo Sansovino Buildings
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 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 interested in alphabetizing
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.
Delete as with all the other alphabetising junk.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 17:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 07:16, 18 November 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:WikiProject Materials science members
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.
From
User talk:FuzzyMagma: Pppery thanks for letting me. I am working at a materials science institute and I was aiming to train volunteers and organise Edit-a-thon to write articles about materials science as part of making a
WikiProject Materials science.Sorry i did not get a chance to start neither but hopefully i will be the beginning of next year.
FuzzyMagma (
talk) 17:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)* Pppery *it has begun... 17:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, this will only work after the project has seriously taken off.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete for now, if the WikiProject is created in future, then this could be re-created then. But until such a time as the associated WikiProject is well established, no need for the members category.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 17:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete for now until the wikiproject materializes --
Lenticel(
talk) 07:17, 18 November 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.
Astronomical objects by source of name
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.
Sorry, I got busy linking and tagging all the categories that I forgot to mention that. The 2019 nomination was withdrawn by the OP, and the 2018 uses faulty arguments for keep. Many of them say that it helps to search, but it doesn't. "Useful" categories would be planets by planet type, by type of star, by existence of atmosphere, by suspected habitability, by distance ranges from Earth, etc; but which use is there in grouping planets named after comic book characters? Another claims that the name is significant because the article discuss it, but that's not the way it works. The guideline means that we categorize things for what they are, not by aspects of its name. A
Rose by any other name would still belong in "Garden plants" and "Rosoideae", but not in "flowers whose name starts with R".
Cambalachero (
talk) 13:47, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete, these objects have nothing substantively in common.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:54, 15 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Keep – Seems useful to me. I'm not sure what the benefit is to deleting them. I understand that
WP:SHAREDNAME is a thing but why is it important? The names of astrononomical objects seem to be important and defining. It's a well-made category tree and doesn't present any issues. I'm of the opinion that if you don't like a category tree, don't use it. Users who are into astronomy appear to have gone to great effort to create it, so they must find it useful. Deleting it wouldn't be a huge loss though as the content is available in articles and lists. I created a few of the categories but only to round out the missing pieces in the category tree; I didn't start it and I'm not attached to it.
MClay1 (
talk) 09:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
"Usefulness" is an ambiguous concept. E.g. it entirely escapes me how it can be "useful" to navigate from one minor planet named after a plant to another minor planet named after a completely different plant.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I was addressing usefulness not likeability.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Categories are not only useful for navigation. They provide useful collections of articles. You could get most of the same function from a list, but I prefer to simplicity of the category format. Usefulness will vary from user to user. I just don't see the point in taking something away from other users. This category tree is not problematic, just a bit niche.
MClay1 (
talk) 01:36, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete exactly what
WP:SHAREDNAME says, these have nothing in common other than a shared name.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 13:46, 16 November 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:SHAREDNAME says: "Avoid categorizing by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject". It was argued in previous CfDs that it is a defining characteristic, and I think that argument should be addressed this time before deleting.
MClay1 (
talk) 01:41, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
So what is the defining characteristic that they share apart from the name? O sure, they are minor planets. But the articles are already in other Minor planets categories too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I have already addressed that non-argument in an earlier message. The only argument advanced to justify it is that the article discussed the origin of the name somewhere, but that's not what being a "defining characteristic" means. Rule of thumb: let's say that the subject of the article changed its name to "Foo". Would we need to make a substantial rewrite to the article, other than move it and in the "reason of the name" section or passage?
Cambalachero (
talk) 14:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)reply
I find these incredibly helpful in their current format. Please do not remove them.
Darque Fyre (
talk) 09:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)reply
The above comment has been moved here from a
duplicate section created in error by a new editor. –
FayenaticLondon 13:44, 17 November 2022 (UTC) reply
Can you please elaborate? Why do you find them so useful?
Cambalachero (
talk) 18:39, 17 November 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:Kickboxing stubs
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.
Delete per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 02:09, 18 November 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
SAAeh (
talk) 04:48, 18 November 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.