Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 28 January 30 >

January 29

Category:Soviet establishments

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:Organizations based in the Soviet Union. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category:Establishments in the Soviet Union is the general format for that category. This seems like a different way of organizing the same idea, by type rather than by year. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment "Soviet establishment" is wrong, according to its description, it is not using "Soviet establishment" properly. A "Soviet establishment" is an establishment established by a Soviet or by the Soviet Union, hence does not need to be inside the Soviet Union (such as an office of Aeroflot in Cuba). And not all establishments inside the Soviet Union would necessarily be a Soviet establishment (such as a foreign consulate) -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Eliminate in Some Form The organization category should be merged as nominated but I'm unsure what Category:Soviet state establishments is actually grouping. (By that I mean that subcategory is also suspect, not that this category should be kept.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • My best guess is that the category creator regarded "establishment" as a synonym of "organization". I'm afraid this requires manual recategorization, then delete. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom - Category:Soviet state establishments seems to be grouping governmental and quasi-governmental bodies, whereas the organisations sub-cat seems to be what would elsewhere be civil society bodies, though there everything was an emanation of the date. Establishments categories are normally things established in 19**, which is quite different. I would prefer to find some different word, but I cannot. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to subcat Category:Organizations based in the Soviet Union. "Establishments" is not being used here in the usual meaning for categories i.e. year founded, but "organisations". – Fayenatic L ondon 16:53, 7 February 2016 (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:Astro Boy 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: no consensus. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Would work better as one bigger category. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose it passes SMALLCAT, and it is not an Android OS category either -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ 70.51.200.135: Five members in a category isn't very large and IMO is under WP:SMALLCAT. There is no definite number for what is too many for it to qualify for SMALLCAT. And why did you mention Android? This has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
The nominated category was in the ambiguously-named Category:Android video games, which has now been renamed to Category:Android (robot) video games. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:31, 7 March 2016 (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:Android 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: Closed by the nominator. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No reason to have two categories about the same thing. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:16, 29 January 2016 (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:Android (operating system) 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: no consensus. As noted, this is a case where applying speedy criterion C2C vs. applying speedy criterion C2D would result in different outcomes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Better name, no reason not to have it as "Android games". People will realise it's talking about the operating system, not a game for an actual " Android". Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 17#Category:Android software
  • Comment one should be aware that android is not a Google topic. And that androids have existed long before Google was founded. -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE the root article is called Android (operating system) not "Android" -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME as per reliable sources for WP:V (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc.). We don't need to disambiguate "operating system" here, no one assumes this is talking about games with androids or androids playing games -- the parent article would be Android game if we had one. Previous move did not discuss this issue. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 14:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose unless Category:Android fiction and its sub-cats are renamed to "Android (robot) fiction" etc, following Android (robot). IMHO this nomination should not be approved on its own. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment are games which are available on multiple platforms really notable for their ability to be played on any particular one of them? I think not. Almost a performer by performance variant. Would we categorize movies and tv shows on whether they're available for playback on blue-ray, VHS, betamax, video disk platforms (ie, Hardware and Software akin to "Android" or "Apple" or whatever for phones) or whether they are available over the air, on cable, dish, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc., all of which have different HW & SW requirements that may or not be compatible. Given that it's not notable for cross-platform games, and we categorize on what's notable, we ought not have such a category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The difference between platforms for video games is often much, much wider than the examples for movies or tv shows. Choosing a platform is a core decision at the start of the project, it can take months for dedicated teams to port game to a different platform and it is usually a large investment. Many platforms simply are incompatible with each other, many require a lot of specialty work. Porting and platform-support is a major issue of discussion in sources. Only in recent years there have been engines and tools to make cross-platform game development easier. The differences between Android vs iOS vs Windows Phone are shrinking from the perspective of developers using cross-platform tools, and certainly very small from users' perspective, except different store, app settings and setup, shifting release dates, and such. Reliable sources keep describing games as iOS/Android/whatever, so we are mostly following then with such categories. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • But does which platforms a game is available on define the game? Walking through Target the other day, I saw "Wheel of Fortune" video game available for any number of platforms, is the game defined by any of those - or is that just non-defining information? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose As Hellknowz correctly stated, the differences between Android, iOS and Windows Phone have been shrinking, and many if not most games are available on several platforms, so the platform isn't a defining feature. Furthermore, most people aren't interested in Android or iOS games, but in games available for whatever happens to be the operating system on their phone or tablet. If a game isn't available for their operating system, people would complain rather than say: "Well, it is an Android game, so it's no surprise I can't play it on my iPad."
    I therefore propose renaming instead to Category:Games for Android, as in Category:Web browsers for Android. -- PanchoS ( talk) 00:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • If so, we would need to rename all Category:Video games by platform for consistency. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 00:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
      • @ Hellknowz: Not necessarily all video games categories, as this argumentation does not necessarily apply to video game consoles. Mobile games however are video games only in the broader sense, so I pooled all of these in a container Category:Mobile games by platform. I'd support renaming them to the "Games for foo" scheme in a followup. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I still don't see why similarity between specifically mobile platforms means choosing a name that doesn't follow reliable sources. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 13:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Reason is that the proposed category title is too ambiguous, so we have to disambiguate either way, either by adding a disambiguator like "(operating system)" out by using WP:NATURALDIS. I'm my previous post I've been arguing why Category:Games for Android is a viable and possibly even preferable way to categorize mobile games on the Android platform. If the same holds for categories where disambiguation isn't needed, remains to be seen. -- PanchoS ( talk) 07:15, 3 February 2016 (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.

Sports festivals

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. The discussion here seems to be a mix of suggestions for mergers and for removal of certain items. It seems like an RFC is needed to determine what items belong in which category tree but I don't see a consensus to delete the entire tree here. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no main topic as sports festival redirects to Multi-sport event. The old categories by this name were renamed to Category:International sports competitions by country with some splitting of contents to multi-sport events, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_20#Category:Sports_festivals_by_country. The nominated hierarchy is newly constructed, and its contents are a mixture of sport events and trade fairs which have little in common; and those which are festivals are already grouped under Festivals by type. The creator has attempted a definition but it is WP:OR and partly circular. We discussed this at Category talk:Sports festivals without agreement. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Creator here, and my main argument for keeping the "sports festival" cat is not the trade fair element, but that there are other athletics festivals that need a parent category of some sort, far beyond "multi-sport events." Examples include Category:Sailing festivals, Category:Equestrian festivals, Category:Ancient Greek athletic festivals, etc. Also, I don't think the definition of "sports category" is too vague, and the definition can always be tweaked. Like cultural festival, arts festivals, or film festival, the meaning is utterly obvious (even with "festival" being vaguely defined overall). Earflaps ( talk) 14:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep, but the creator's WP:OR definition is clearly not usable at all. A car show clearly isn't a sport(s) festival. However, something like a sport(s) festival does exist, and there are WP:RS with a usable definition, for example Donald Getz: Event Studies, p. 65:
"sport festivals: a celebration of sport, often for youth, involving many sports"
This and other definitions in literature allow us to consider the following a "sport(s) festival":
Other editors will be able to add further examples from other countries. From what I saw, non-competitive or less competitive sports festivals however are generally undercovered in en.wikipedia. So, while I agree this topic is really hard to handle, it would be undue to limit our categorization to easy demarcated topics. We need to try and find a both working and sufficiently sourced definition. The non-existence of an article on Sports festivals (with the redirect just going to a related topic), clearly doesn't make the topic easier to handle. But this deficiency shouldn't keep us from closing a gap in our categorzation scheme. -- PanchoS ( talk) 23:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The suggested criteria seem to be "multi-sport events, and single-sport events so long as they are fun". Sorry, but that's so vague as to be pointless; what's in or out is a matter of personal opinion. If we don't have clear inclusion criteria then WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE says we should not have a category. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Arirang Festival 2013
    • I disagree with you Fayenatic London, I think he makes excellent points myself - and frankly, it shouldn't be too hard on a case by case basis to see what's a festival and what isn't. If the marketers or organizers describe it as a festival, it's a festival. If the marketers and organizers describe it as a straight-old competition, it's a competition, or "event" in a broad sense. To say a festival category shouldn't exist because "festival" is vaguely defined, well festival is vaguely defined on every festival category, because festival is an inherently vague word with broad interpretation, like 'convention' or 'show' or 'ritual.' But I think Pancho's post shows there is absolutely no doubt that sports festivals exist as unique events: at the minimum, the Olympics and the Mass Games like the Arirang Festival are obviously festivals, and the events with "Sports Festival" in their name are sports festivals. Events we are unsure about, we can just leave in their broader categories. Earflaps ( talk) 16:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I haven't taken part of this part of the discussion so far. By the bare wording of the word "festival" I would assume that festivities beside the conduct of sports should be a very significant part of a sports event in order to qualify for this category. Olympics wouldn't qualify because the focus in Olympics is mostly on sports, not on festivities. Fun runs wouldn't qualify either, because that's a run, not a festivity. The World Festival of Youth and Students wouldn't qualify either, afaics that is a festival, but it's not a sports festival. With every example I'm adding, I'm getting more doubts about these categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If the events are categorised by the organiser using the word "festival", that's also overcategorisation, by WP:SHAREDNAME. Earflaps, all the criteria that you have suggested so far breach one part of WP:Overcategorization or another. These categories have to go. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I guess the fundamental problem here is the overlap between sports events and sports festivals (whatever they are). I'd suggest to delete these categories and possibly start a new category with a way narrower scope, e.g. Category:Festivities at sports events so that the sports and the festivities do not overlap - but of course only if there is enough content for it. It may contain child Category:Olympic Games ceremonies to begin with. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Side question - if the result is keep, would it be appropriate or inappropriate to make "sports festivals" a subcategory of "cultural festivals"? I've run into the same conundrum with "science festivals," frankly don't know how to make the call. Earflaps ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Especially when sports festivals are allowed, it would probably neater to have a parent category Festivals, with child categories Cultural, Science and Sports festivals. In addition it may contain religious festivals. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Marcocapelle here: in a broader sense, basically everything is cultural. We don't use cultural in such a broad sense though, as then it wouldn't be useful for categorization purposes. -- PanchoS ( talk) 07:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Very reluctant to join in as I fail to see a massive festivalisation of events throughout a wide range of events that are not festivals, I am concerned that a criterion for a category rests upon If the marketers or organizers describe it as a festival, it's a festival. , in many cases they are events, and the name is a false attribution. And to even have the thought that when something is called a science festival, that the name determines the category? I really think the creator is not providing adequate answers to Fayanetic London, and should be very careful in making a case for festival against sport events. The making categories in the current manner suggests a tail wagging a dog. So far their is nsufficient rationale for sport and event to be claimed to be a festival. Fun has nothing to do a well reasoned category structure JarrahTree 23:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Um, perhaps you can give an example of an event explicitly advertised as a festival, but which is not a festival? I have yet to encounter one, except maybe some mislabeled concerts. Earflaps ( talk) 16:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • That's quite a different discussion, you've convinced me to join in that discussion as well, see above. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Issue needs to focus. This is potentially a big and important tree, so if we keep getting sidetracked by "is every multi-sporting event a festival," we'll never reach a conclusion on if this category is useful or not. Even if we decide not to include "international sports competitons" and "multi-sporting events" in the sports festival category (and just have as related categories with a "see also" link), that doesn't change the fact that Mountaineering festivals, Sailing festivals, Hot air balloon festivals, etc. need a parent category. If not "sports festivals," than what? Athletics festivals? Sporting festivals, perhaps? Basically we can keep every vaguely categorized "event" out of this tree if that's the consensus, but that doesn't change the fact that there are sporting events undoubtably categorized as festivals, which need a home. Just like mushroom festival and strawberry festival need food festival. Someone is always free to start a distinctly different discussion on the sports events inclusion issue, or the "are trade shows considered attractions or mini-festivals" issue. Earflaps ( talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • (btw, it wasn't my idea to include "multi-sports events" and "international sporting competitions" in the festival tree, some genius decided to do that a long time ago, I assume out of laziness. I myself never put individual sporting events into a festival cat, unless that page makes it explicit the event was considered a festival by organizers or historians/journalists). Earflaps ( talk) 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This gives a whole new direction to the discussion. When we remove sport games and competitions from the tree and only leave the "real" festivals, the categories become much more acceptable, at least for me. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and just a created upper layer. In what sense are automobile industry shows "sports"? But there they are - maybe someone wore a baseball cap whilst visiting...Why not Burning Man, lots of hacky-sack and frisbee played there - and it's fun, which apparently is a criterion - by the way if I don't like watching cricket or golf or bowling does that make them un-fun? Ah the subjectivity again... Contrived category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note to Carlossuarez46 - I recommend you check the category again, "automobile industry shows" are not a subcategory or part of the event definition, it was changed a while back. "Fun" is also not a part of the definition in any way - only whether the sports event organizers/historians explicitly call it a festival. Earflaps ( talk) 19:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
You still have no way round the rule at WP:SHAREDNAME. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
I've made several perfectly good arguments around that rule, I've becoming increasingly baffled. THe rule reads, "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." Please explain how "sports" is a non-defining characteristic of sports festival? I mean, is "food" not a defining characteristic of "food festival"? (so baffled...) Also, "sports festival" has been shown in the discussion above to be a unique and defined topic. A festival focused predominantly on sports, or a festival called a sports festival by its organizers. Not "event," which can mean anything, a competition, private race, betting event, fundraising convention, etc. Earflaps ( talk) 15:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Earflaps: It is "festival" that is the problem here. You have created a sub-category of sports events for the ones where the organisers happen to have included the word "festival" in the name. Well, this would include about half the events listed in the article Highland games; but that word clearly does not amount to a WP:DEFINING difference between those and the other half. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
"but that word clearly does not amount to a WP:DEFINING difference between those and the other half." - um, care to explain why not? If an organizer calls their event a concert, not a festival (see Live8), isn't that relevant? Earflaps ( talk) 02:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Earflaps: Look at the sub-lists for Canada and Highland_games#United_States. Do you imagine that e.g. the "San Diego Scottish Highland Games & Gathering of the Clans", and "Seaside Highland Games" in Ventura, are less festive than the "Sacramento Valley Scottish Games & Festival" and "Elizabeth Celtic Festival" which include your magic word? – Fayenatic L ondon 11:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Category:Sports events tree. The topic we seem to be defining here is an event involving sports that does not fit well into the idea of Category:Sports competitions. We already have a place for that within the "sports event" tree. I feel that a broad festival definition involving relative age, remuneration and gatherings outlined above is far too subjective for the category system. Non-explicitly competitive sports events can sit happily in the sports event category. The demarcation is not as clear as the original creator proposes: most major sports events feature a participatory/celebration element; I have personally been involved in these elements for Eurobasket and the Olympic Games, for example. Nearly all major athletics championships (and many non-major events) have associated mass races or kids events, ranging from the world half marathon championships to the annual New York Grand Prix. Practically 90% of American track and field meets have youth participatory elements. The given definition is going to include a far larger number of events that I think the original creator realises. SFB 11:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Note - um, Sillyfolkboy, according to your argument, every festival subcategory should be deleted and merged into Category:Events. A music event (see Sanremo Music Festival) can be a music competition, concert, and a music festival at the same time, but those event types are not synonymous even slightly, hence separate Category:Music competitions and Category:Concerts and Category:Music festivals categories. And with that example, I don't see how merging those three categories would do any good whatsoever, regardless of which category ends up being bigger. The "celebratory" aspect of any event also seems irrelevant, since most social "events" of all sorts usually have a celebratory or participatory element. Doesn't make it a festival or not, only whether the organizers/the culture/researchers call it a festival explicitly, just like how it is with music events. Earflaps ( talk) 02:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note - Ijust completely rewrote the description, tried to incorporate a lot of the previous comments - also changed some subcats (I'd been waiting for confirmation that someone else thought "multi-sport events" didn't belong as a child before I changing the precedent, but User:Marcocapelle made a comment above, so here goes.)
See also: Category:International sports competitions and Category:Multi-sport events

This category is for sports festivals, or festivals that focus predominantly on sports or sporting. Also referred to as sporting festivals or athletic festivals, some of the earliest recorded sports festivals were the multi-sport Panathenaic Games and Olympic Games, which are also categorized as multi-sport events. More recent examples of multi-sport festivals include the Arirang Festival in North Korea.

Other sporting festivals focus on only one sport, such as mountaineering festivals, equestrian festivals, or gymnastics festivals. Sporting festivals focused on transportation sports, like motorcycle rallies, boat festivals, hot air balloon festivals, or sailing festivals, may include attractions such as races, air shows, auto shows, or boat shows. Culturally specific multi-sport festivals such as the Australian sports carnival are also categorized here.

— New intro as of 3/3 Earflaps ( talk) 13:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm no friend of lengthy inclusion rationales. Generally, the title of a category and possibly a few clarifying comments should suffice to describe its content. How about this:
This category collects single- or multi-sport events that are described as festivals for celebrating a tradition of amateur sporting beyond the competitive character of semi-professional sports.
The main article for this category is Sports festivals.
We can probably do better, but IMHO this should be a viable working basis. -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Earflaps: following my objection above that only some Highland games events would be categorized as "festivals" under your previous suggestion, because only some of their organisers happened to include the word "festival" when naming the event, your last line about Australian sports carnival seems designed to bypass that problem. However, the long paragraph description still fails to define specific inclusion criteria; in effect it says "these are some things that I think are festivals". @ PanchoS: are you proposing instead to change the inclusion criterion from "whose name includes the word 'festival'" to "described as festivals", and if so, described where? – Fayenatic L ondon 14:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Fayenatic london: I never proposed automatically following the self-styled title of an event. We never do that. We're describing topics by what WP:RS say, and the same holds for how we're categorizing topics. So, basically yes: an event named "Festival" may lack the typical characteristics of a sports festival, while another event may be named otherwise – in non-English language countries this may even be the standard case – but still constitute a sports festival. -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, following the name was explicitly an earlier suggestion by Earflaps. Your alternative criteria sound justifiable in theory but hard to implement and demonstrate in practice. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Consistently with my earlier reaction and in contrast to User:PanchoS, I think the main article can't be Sports festivals because it redirects to Multi-sports event which has its own category and by the way I would also avoid any reference to multi-sports events with examples like the Panathenaic Games and Olympic Games in the text of the header. Just a "see also" should be sufficient. I agree with PanchoS that it's not necessary to give all those examples in the header. The main issue is that the "festival" aspect should be more clearly defined (that is the main concern of User:Fayenatic london) and I'm honestly surprised that the article Festival is so limited in scope that it can hardly be used as a starting point for defining sports festivals. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • OK, true, it can't be main article here, as it is still a redirect to a more specific article. This wasn't at the heart of my proposal though. It's so sad nobody finds enough time to write a proper main article. -- PanchoS ( talk) 19:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
In all AGF cannot believe that this discussion has got this far, and that such a large qualifier statement on the main space of the category is required. The category should be able to stand alone without any qualifications, and it currently doesnt and I cannot believe that such a length of time can be taken up with this. Culturally specific multi-sport festivals such as the Australian sports carnival is weird, and as an Australian, I object to such an appropriation, sociologically or ethnographically speaking they are not festivities they are sports events. JarrahTree 14:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • A month on, Earflaps has removed that Australia-related sentence. [6] The current attempted definition on the category page starts "festivals that focus predominantly on sports or sporting". As the page Festival says "A festival is an event ordinarily celebrated by a community and centering on some characteristic aspect of that community and its religion or traditions, often marked as a local or national holiday", I fail to see how many of the present sub-cats meet that definition. In particular, the final sentence on the category page about single-sport transportation events which are claimed to be "festivals" states "may include attractions such as… auto shows…". Those are trade events which are so far away from "community" that this category has no clear focus. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I also find the comparison with music festivals misleading. A "music festival" is commonly understood as a gathering of people around a series of music performances by a variety of musicians. A "sports festival" is no where near having such a commonly understood and shared definition as the compound phrase "music festival". SFB 22:13, 8 April 2016 (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:Web operating systems

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Most of the articles in this category aren't actually operating systems, they are Web desktops. Even though some people call web desktops "web operating systems", the former is the better name since generally speaking they aren't operating systems at all, but rather web apps that try to emulate the appearance of the classic GUI desktop environment SJK ( talk) 10:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support. This could be a speedy per C2C. The article is Web desktop. While there is a page at Web operating system, it's up for AfD, and is clearly a WP:DABCONCEPT, bordering on WP:DICDEF page about various marketing and jargon uses of the phrase "Web operating system", which has been applied in multiple ways, which do not form a conceptual category.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:23, 4 February 2016 (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:Fictional operating systems

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, and Category:Fictional artificial intelligences seems to be the target with the best fit. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Most of the entries in this category appear to be fictional characters or fictional places. In what sense are those fictional characters or places actually "operating systems"? Even if they are referred to by that term in canon, in what sense do they actually belong under Category:Operating systems. A person comes to Category:Operating systems because they want to learn about computer operating systems, not about fancruft. SJK ( talk) 09:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
One of the entries in this category is even a film I, Robot (film). I've seen that film, one of its characters is an artificially intelligent computer. Even if we assume that an artificially intelligent computer has an operating system, the artificial intelligence might not be the actual operating system (as opposed to an application which runs under it). SJK ( talk) 09:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Fictional software and rediffuse as possible; and cleanup -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per the above, after clearing out entries that are not even fictional software, broadly conceived.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment While I do not consider fictional categories to be fancruft, I am actually puzzled by some entries in this category. HAL 9000 is a sentient computer who happens to control the operating systems of a ship. Edwin Jarvis is a human character with over 50 years of appearances, who happens to be depicted as an artificial intelligence in recent adaptations. Chi (Chobits) is a sentient personal computer in human form. Are computers supposed to be categorized as "operating systems"? Dimadick ( talk) 21:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Indeed, I think part of the problem is that - an operating system is not just a computer or any old piece of computer software, it is a particular layer of software in a computer. Fictional works, when they include computer systems, rarely address them at the degree of specificity to talk about the different layers of software involved. In real world computer systems, there is a distinction between different layers - microcode, firmware, hypervisors, operating systems, libraries and frameworks and middleware, and then finally applications on top of all of that. Fictional works rarely bother to carefully distinguish these layers, since the distinction is not particularly relevant to the general population. The mistake of this category then, is to identify fictional computers with one of those layers, when very few fictional works do so - and even when a few do, the fact that they do so is probably not significant enough to deserve a category. SJK ( talk) 02:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge but not to Category:Fictional software, instead to Category:Fictional artificial intelligences. This isn't about software, it's about hybrid human-computer based characters. Merging to software and then do a cleanup, as suggested earlier, would merely result in just everything being purged. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:59, 25 February 2016 (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:Fellow Members of the SME

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING, WP:OCASSOC and WP:SMALLCAT.
All 3 of these categories were created to house just 1 biography article: Ben Wang. (A second article has since been added in one case.) Certainly we group people in Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United States when there is a main article to establish notability for that status. But none of these have a main article, it's not clear if these are formal "fellows" or informal "fellow members", and the existence of fellowships aren't even mentioned in the organizational articles: 1 SME (society), 2 Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering, or 3 Institute of Industrial Engineers. (Alternatively, if kept, all 3 categories should be renamed based on the actual article names.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Disavian as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Engineering. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support deletion unless the problems raised by the nominator are solved within the next 8 days. -- PanchoS ( talk) 10:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. SJK ( talk) 04:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I made the categories under the theory that other articles would organically appear in them, which has happened with a couple other academic society categories that I've created in the past. Since that's not the case, support deleting them. Disavian ( talk) 01:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Became made a Fellow of a society is dome evidcne of notability, but essentially it is an award: we do not like award categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:15, 2 February 2016 (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:Establishments in Czechoslovakia by century

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 categories, while upmerging contents per the discussion as proposed by Fayenatic london. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the millennium discussions here, I think these centuries category are not relevant for Czechoslovakia since it only existed from 1918-1992 or entirely in the 20th century. As such, the Establishments by century category is a category of one. Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. By the way it wouldn't surprise me if there are a couple more similar categories belonging to countries existing for less than a century. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree but those can be done as speedy deletion nominations. There's no need to rename and merge like the millennium ones. the Soviet Union is an obvious one. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Make that Category:Television in Czechoslovakia. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Okay let's do it that way and have this nomination closed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:57, 14 May 2016 (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:Towns_in_XYZ_district

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: allow creation and expansion of Category:Cities in India by state or territory, by creating similar categories as Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh‎. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply
The following categories were tagged, so I will rename them as follows to start this off:
Category:Cities and towns in Chittoor district to Category:Towns in Chittoor district
Category:Cities and towns in East Godavari district to Category:Towns in East Godavari district
Category:Cities and towns in Kadapa district to Category:Towns in Kadapa district
Category:Cities and towns in Nellore district to Category:Towns in Nellore district
– Fayenatic L ondon 18:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply


Cities and towns are different as per 2011 Census of India. Hence, as per the definition Cities are population with 1,00,000 and towns below them with (Class - I to Class - V). It may have started and grown up and uniformity was maintained but adding all in one category cannot be distinguished. Its like adding all sets under one name, it may be census town, statutory town or a city. So, I say there should be separate category named Category:Towns_in_XYZ_district.-- Vin09  (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Support - We can have Separate Categories for both towns and cities in a distinguished way swaroop 06:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakthi swaroop ( talk • contribs)
  • Need clarification, which exact categories would you like to have deleted, renamed or merged and (if any of the latter two) to what? See the nominations above on how to properly present the nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note This incomplete nomination (see WP:CFD#HOWTO) refers to Category:Cities and towns in India by district and its 678 subcategories. Pinging Marcocapelle.
    @ Vin09: I'm not yet convinced of separating towns and cities at district level, but am ready to take further arguments into account. Either way, as promised on your talk page, I'm ready to help you with filing a correct CfD request and tagging the affected 679 categories, so we all can properly discuss the issue. Best regards, PanchoS ( talk) 09:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS and Marcocapelle:, definitely I obey you. I would like Category:Cities and towns in Kurnool district to Category:Towns in Kurnool district, this applies to all the similar categories. For example, take Andhra Pradesh. Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh justifies the city categorization. Also, Category:Towns in Kurnool district for towns, can also create Category:Cities in Kurnool district if required. But Category:Cities and towns in Kurnool district can't differentiate which is a city and which is a town. We have Category:Villages in Kurnool district which says all the entries all villages.-- Vin09  (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I got your point to add subst:cfr on category page but, here it is related to many pages. Do I need to add on each page?-- Vin09  (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hey, @ Vin09: I hope I got your idea right.
    I basically agree we should separate Indian cities from mere towns on a state-level, like Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh. With cities being defined as > 100.000 inhabitants, looking at List of cities in India by population it seems there are plenty of cities in most of the 29 states and 7 territories to justify per-state categorization of cities. It however remains to be shown if most of the 683 districts have enough cities to justify per-district categorization of cities. This is the open question in need of clarification.
    Now if we went down to district level for cities, we would probably start creating the cities by district categories for all of these districts as subcategory of the cities and towns by district categories.
    Then, in a final step, we might want to take the cities and towns by district categories to WP:CFD, or we might want to leave them as they are. As cities are a specific subset of towns rather than a completely different thing, we might want to argue the wording Towns by district perfectly embraces the districts cities (in their subcategory) by definition. Or we might argue to keep the wording Cities and towns by district, if we think cities must be explicitly mentioned to be properly included.
    IMHO, we should find an answer to the open question, how many cities the average district would contain. In case there are enough cities, we would then proceed with creating the cities-per-district subcategories, and would only then come back to WP:CfD.
    Is this a plan matching what you had in mind? What does Marcocapelle and what do others think about it?
    Cheers, PanchoS ( talk) 13:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: It need not be in district. check Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh. We can denote them state wise. Also, check Category:Census towns in Andhra Pradesh. Census towns are again a different set of category.-- Vin09  (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Vin09: OK, if you don't want to categorize cities by district anymore, then things are even more straightforward: As cities remain a subset of towns, we just need to create additional cities-by-state categories and add all cities to these new categories. No category rename involved.
Unsure if census towns can be generally considered a subset of towns, too, but that shouldn't be our current problem. -- PanchoS ( talk) 13:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS:I think cities are not subset of towns, while there are many towns in a city like smaller municipalities under its urban agglomeration. If we can add cities to new category. What is the need of Cities word in Cities and towns in XYZ district. But still, I obey with your statement.-- Vin09  (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Vin09: C'mon, this is not about obedience. We just need to be clear about the definitions and category scopes before muddling through this enormous number of articles and categories.
More and more I think we need a properly sourced, authoritative definition of the different types of communities in India, going beyond what exists in the lead of List of towns in India by population and the article Municipal governance in India. Are populated communities with 100.000+ inhabitants automatically cities, as defined in the former? Or is there a fundamental difference between towns and cities, as you're suggesting? Or is the city an optional administrative layer above the administrative layer of towns, as the latter article is suggesting? (and in the latter case: are there both cities comprising a single town, and cities comprising several towns?)
I'm really with you that we need some kind of differentiation there, but before starting large-scale category operations involving ten thousands of articles, we really should get this straight. Regards, PanchoS ( talk) 14:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: As per Census of India 2011 every city qualifies to be a city if it satisfies 1lakh criteria. Please go through THIS PDF. I've done work on most of the pages. Feel free to ask anymore questions if you need info.-- Vin09  (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Vin09: Sorry if my nitpicking makes you angry. This is not my intention.
However, it's usually the nominator's duty to present a clear proposal backed by the full argumentation, in order to convince other editors why a long-standing categorization scheme should be profoundly changed. This is even more necessary if a change of the categorization scheme involves 10.000s of articles, possibly much more, and if the definitions and distinctions are not properly given and sourced in an article. Now, the PDF file you presented gives definitions about "statutory towns", "census towns", "outgrowths", and "urban agglomerations". Am I getting it right that with "cities" you're referring to "urban agglomerations"? Furthermore, is this "urban agglomeration" what would usually and internationally be considered a "city" or is it just a statistical category devoid of any real-life significance? Furthermore, on which basis are "census towns" to be considered towns or not? And how would we treat "outgrowths"?
All of these aspects are totally unclear to me, and possibly other readers here. IMHO, there's no way really around a properly sourced definition of these concepts and its inclusion criteria, and a coherent argumentation why we would draw these lines. I might find some time to read up on this subject tonight, but I can't promise. -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ PanchoS: I will explain you clearly. All these applies only to India.

  • City: population with 1 lakh and above
  • Town:Under 1 lakh population (all municipalities, Nagar panchayats towns and are more commonly known with the name Statutory towns)
  • Census Town: Characteristics/Qualifies to be a Town but not a town, in between a village and a town
  • Village:a rural settlement

Any more info please feel free to write.-- Vin09  (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Still no answers to my questions. Still no rationale for what should beer changed how and why. On this basis, I'm opposing this botched nomination. -- PanchoS ( talk) 16:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: You said you will read concepts in the above para. I explained it clearly, provided sources. Couldn't get your question on what you need info? @ Titodutta: as he is an admin from India and aware these concepts.-- Vin09  (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Probably a good idea. May others weigh in. -- PanchoS ( talk) 06:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Meanwhile, please see the example if you may get any idea : Guntur (city) and Repalle town are categorized in Category:Cities and towns in Guntur district. Now, a reader may think either both as a city, or both as a town and sometimes Repalle as a city and Guntur as a town. Infact, Guntur is a city and Repalle is a town. So, if we categorize Guntur (city) under Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh and Repalle (town) in Category:Towns in Guntur district it's very easy for a reader to understand which are towns and which are cities.-- Vin09  (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I accept your statement in the above para which states:

:OK, if you don't want to categorize cities by district anymore, then things are even more straightforward: As cities remain a subset of towns, we just need to create additional cities-by-state categories and add all cities to these new categories. No category rename involved.
Unsure if census towns can be generally considered a subset of towns, too, but that shouldn't be our current problem.

What do you say?-- Vin09  (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Vin09: So cities are nothing else than a subset of towns, right? If larger than 100,000, towns are named "city", and while some administrative privileges may be tied to the status of a city, the city otherwise represents the same area and the same administrative layer as a town would do? Is this all correct? If yes, then we should be ready to proceed creating the remaining subcategories of Category:Cities in India by state or territory, such as Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh‎ :) -- PanchoS ( talk) 08:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: First of all I would thank you for this discussion, as we were following Census 2011 and Census 2001 definitions together that made the confusion. Census 2001 definitions were modified now. So, now I say go ahead I support what you said above. I would need your help in future as well, if I get stuck at any issue. Thank you. Cheers!-- Vin09  (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In India 100,000 is a lakh. This is thus a notable boundary. If the definition is accepted for more than the purposes of the 2011 census, I think we could allow the distinction and have a split for each state between towns and cities. Both should be sub-cats of "Populated places in foo". However, I do not think we should have towns or cities by district: there are unlikely to be enough in each district to make a category big enough to be worth having. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29&oldid=1210399678"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 28 January 30 >

January 29

Category:Soviet establishments

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:Organizations based in the Soviet Union. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category:Establishments in the Soviet Union is the general format for that category. This seems like a different way of organizing the same idea, by type rather than by year. Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:41, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:49, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment "Soviet establishment" is wrong, according to its description, it is not using "Soviet establishment" properly. A "Soviet establishment" is an establishment established by a Soviet or by the Soviet Union, hence does not need to be inside the Soviet Union (such as an office of Aeroflot in Cuba). And not all establishments inside the Soviet Union would necessarily be a Soviet establishment (such as a foreign consulate) -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:50, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Eliminate in Some Form The organization category should be merged as nominated but I'm unsure what Category:Soviet state establishments is actually grouping. (By that I mean that subcategory is also suspect, not that this category should be kept.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • My best guess is that the category creator regarded "establishment" as a synonym of "organization". I'm afraid this requires manual recategorization, then delete. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom - Category:Soviet state establishments seems to be grouping governmental and quasi-governmental bodies, whereas the organisations sub-cat seems to be what would elsewhere be civil society bodies, though there everything was an emanation of the date. Establishments categories are normally things established in 19**, which is quite different. I would prefer to find some different word, but I cannot. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to subcat Category:Organizations based in the Soviet Union. "Establishments" is not being used here in the usual meaning for categories i.e. year founded, but "organisations". – Fayenatic L ondon 16:53, 7 February 2016 (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:Astro Boy 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: no consensus. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Would work better as one bigger category. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose it passes SMALLCAT, and it is not an Android OS category either -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ 70.51.200.135: Five members in a category isn't very large and IMO is under WP:SMALLCAT. There is no definite number for what is too many for it to qualify for SMALLCAT. And why did you mention Android? This has nothing to do with that whatsoever. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:15, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
The nominated category was in the ambiguously-named Category:Android video games, which has now been renamed to Category:Android (robot) video games. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:31, 7 March 2016 (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:Android 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: Closed by the nominator. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 07:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No reason to have two categories about the same thing. Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:16, 29 January 2016 (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:Android (operating system) 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: no consensus. As noted, this is a case where applying speedy criterion C2C vs. applying speedy criterion C2D would result in different outcomes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Better name, no reason not to have it as "Android games". People will realise it's talking about the operating system, not a game for an actual " Android". Anarchyte ( work | talk) 12:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Previous nomination: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 17#Category:Android software
  • Comment one should be aware that android is not a Google topic. And that androids have existed long before Google was founded. -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • NOTE the root article is called Android (operating system) not "Android" -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:COMMONNAME as per reliable sources for WP:V (e.g. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] etc.). We don't need to disambiguate "operating system" here, no one assumes this is talking about games with androids or androids playing games -- the parent article would be Android game if we had one. Previous move did not discuss this issue. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 14:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose unless Category:Android fiction and its sub-cats are renamed to "Android (robot) fiction" etc, following Android (robot). IMHO this nomination should not be approved on its own. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment are games which are available on multiple platforms really notable for their ability to be played on any particular one of them? I think not. Almost a performer by performance variant. Would we categorize movies and tv shows on whether they're available for playback on blue-ray, VHS, betamax, video disk platforms (ie, Hardware and Software akin to "Android" or "Apple" or whatever for phones) or whether they are available over the air, on cable, dish, Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, etc., all of which have different HW & SW requirements that may or not be compatible. Given that it's not notable for cross-platform games, and we categorize on what's notable, we ought not have such a category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The difference between platforms for video games is often much, much wider than the examples for movies or tv shows. Choosing a platform is a core decision at the start of the project, it can take months for dedicated teams to port game to a different platform and it is usually a large investment. Many platforms simply are incompatible with each other, many require a lot of specialty work. Porting and platform-support is a major issue of discussion in sources. Only in recent years there have been engines and tools to make cross-platform game development easier. The differences between Android vs iOS vs Windows Phone are shrinking from the perspective of developers using cross-platform tools, and certainly very small from users' perspective, except different store, app settings and setup, shifting release dates, and such. Reliable sources keep describing games as iOS/Android/whatever, so we are mostly following then with such categories. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 23:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • But does which platforms a game is available on define the game? Walking through Target the other day, I saw "Wheel of Fortune" video game available for any number of platforms, is the game defined by any of those - or is that just non-defining information? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:43, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose As Hellknowz correctly stated, the differences between Android, iOS and Windows Phone have been shrinking, and many if not most games are available on several platforms, so the platform isn't a defining feature. Furthermore, most people aren't interested in Android or iOS games, but in games available for whatever happens to be the operating system on their phone or tablet. If a game isn't available for their operating system, people would complain rather than say: "Well, it is an Android game, so it's no surprise I can't play it on my iPad."
    I therefore propose renaming instead to Category:Games for Android, as in Category:Web browsers for Android. -- PanchoS ( talk) 00:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • If so, we would need to rename all Category:Video games by platform for consistency. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 00:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
      • @ Hellknowz: Not necessarily all video games categories, as this argumentation does not necessarily apply to video game consoles. Mobile games however are video games only in the broader sense, so I pooled all of these in a container Category:Mobile games by platform. I'd support renaming them to the "Games for foo" scheme in a followup. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I still don't see why similarity between specifically mobile platforms means choosing a name that doesn't follow reliable sources. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 13:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
          • Reason is that the proposed category title is too ambiguous, so we have to disambiguate either way, either by adding a disambiguator like "(operating system)" out by using WP:NATURALDIS. I'm my previous post I've been arguing why Category:Games for Android is a viable and possibly even preferable way to categorize mobile games on the Android platform. If the same holds for categories where disambiguation isn't needed, remains to be seen. -- PanchoS ( talk) 07:15, 3 February 2016 (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.

Sports festivals

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. The discussion here seems to be a mix of suggestions for mergers and for removal of certain items. It seems like an RFC is needed to determine what items belong in which category tree but I don't see a consensus to delete the entire tree here. Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:30, 4 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no main topic as sports festival redirects to Multi-sport event. The old categories by this name were renamed to Category:International sports competitions by country with some splitting of contents to multi-sport events, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_20#Category:Sports_festivals_by_country. The nominated hierarchy is newly constructed, and its contents are a mixture of sport events and trade fairs which have little in common; and those which are festivals are already grouped under Festivals by type. The creator has attempted a definition but it is WP:OR and partly circular. We discussed this at Category talk:Sports festivals without agreement. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:27, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Creator here, and my main argument for keeping the "sports festival" cat is not the trade fair element, but that there are other athletics festivals that need a parent category of some sort, far beyond "multi-sport events." Examples include Category:Sailing festivals, Category:Equestrian festivals, Category:Ancient Greek athletic festivals, etc. Also, I don't think the definition of "sports category" is too vague, and the definition can always be tweaked. Like cultural festival, arts festivals, or film festival, the meaning is utterly obvious (even with "festival" being vaguely defined overall). Earflaps ( talk) 14:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Keep, but the creator's WP:OR definition is clearly not usable at all. A car show clearly isn't a sport(s) festival. However, something like a sport(s) festival does exist, and there are WP:RS with a usable definition, for example Donald Getz: Event Studies, p. 65:
"sport festivals: a celebration of sport, often for youth, involving many sports"
This and other definitions in literature allow us to consider the following a "sport(s) festival":
Other editors will be able to add further examples from other countries. From what I saw, non-competitive or less competitive sports festivals however are generally undercovered in en.wikipedia. So, while I agree this topic is really hard to handle, it would be undue to limit our categorization to easy demarcated topics. We need to try and find a both working and sufficiently sourced definition. The non-existence of an article on Sports festivals (with the redirect just going to a related topic), clearly doesn't make the topic easier to handle. But this deficiency shouldn't keep us from closing a gap in our categorzation scheme. -- PanchoS ( talk) 23:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • The suggested criteria seem to be "multi-sport events, and single-sport events so long as they are fun". Sorry, but that's so vague as to be pointless; what's in or out is a matter of personal opinion. If we don't have clear inclusion criteria then WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE says we should not have a category. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Arirang Festival 2013
    • I disagree with you Fayenatic London, I think he makes excellent points myself - and frankly, it shouldn't be too hard on a case by case basis to see what's a festival and what isn't. If the marketers or organizers describe it as a festival, it's a festival. If the marketers and organizers describe it as a straight-old competition, it's a competition, or "event" in a broad sense. To say a festival category shouldn't exist because "festival" is vaguely defined, well festival is vaguely defined on every festival category, because festival is an inherently vague word with broad interpretation, like 'convention' or 'show' or 'ritual.' But I think Pancho's post shows there is absolutely no doubt that sports festivals exist as unique events: at the minimum, the Olympics and the Mass Games like the Arirang Festival are obviously festivals, and the events with "Sports Festival" in their name are sports festivals. Events we are unsure about, we can just leave in their broader categories. Earflaps ( talk) 16:49, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I haven't taken part of this part of the discussion so far. By the bare wording of the word "festival" I would assume that festivities beside the conduct of sports should be a very significant part of a sports event in order to qualify for this category. Olympics wouldn't qualify because the focus in Olympics is mostly on sports, not on festivities. Fun runs wouldn't qualify either, because that's a run, not a festivity. The World Festival of Youth and Students wouldn't qualify either, afaics that is a festival, but it's not a sports festival. With every example I'm adding, I'm getting more doubts about these categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If the events are categorised by the organiser using the word "festival", that's also overcategorisation, by WP:SHAREDNAME. Earflaps, all the criteria that you have suggested so far breach one part of WP:Overcategorization or another. These categories have to go. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I guess the fundamental problem here is the overlap between sports events and sports festivals (whatever they are). I'd suggest to delete these categories and possibly start a new category with a way narrower scope, e.g. Category:Festivities at sports events so that the sports and the festivities do not overlap - but of course only if there is enough content for it. It may contain child Category:Olympic Games ceremonies to begin with. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:20, 5 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Side question - if the result is keep, would it be appropriate or inappropriate to make "sports festivals" a subcategory of "cultural festivals"? I've run into the same conundrum with "science festivals," frankly don't know how to make the call. Earflaps ( talk) 15:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Especially when sports festivals are allowed, it would probably neater to have a parent category Festivals, with child categories Cultural, Science and Sports festivals. In addition it may contain religious festivals. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with Marcocapelle here: in a broader sense, basically everything is cultural. We don't use cultural in such a broad sense though, as then it wouldn't be useful for categorization purposes. -- PanchoS ( talk) 07:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Very reluctant to join in as I fail to see a massive festivalisation of events throughout a wide range of events that are not festivals, I am concerned that a criterion for a category rests upon If the marketers or organizers describe it as a festival, it's a festival. , in many cases they are events, and the name is a false attribution. And to even have the thought that when something is called a science festival, that the name determines the category? I really think the creator is not providing adequate answers to Fayanetic London, and should be very careful in making a case for festival against sport events. The making categories in the current manner suggests a tail wagging a dog. So far their is nsufficient rationale for sport and event to be claimed to be a festival. Fun has nothing to do a well reasoned category structure JarrahTree 23:12, 3 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Um, perhaps you can give an example of an event explicitly advertised as a festival, but which is not a festival? I have yet to encounter one, except maybe some mislabeled concerts. Earflaps ( talk) 16:23, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • That's quite a different discussion, you've convinced me to join in that discussion as well, see above. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Issue needs to focus. This is potentially a big and important tree, so if we keep getting sidetracked by "is every multi-sporting event a festival," we'll never reach a conclusion on if this category is useful or not. Even if we decide not to include "international sports competitons" and "multi-sporting events" in the sports festival category (and just have as related categories with a "see also" link), that doesn't change the fact that Mountaineering festivals, Sailing festivals, Hot air balloon festivals, etc. need a parent category. If not "sports festivals," than what? Athletics festivals? Sporting festivals, perhaps? Basically we can keep every vaguely categorized "event" out of this tree if that's the consensus, but that doesn't change the fact that there are sporting events undoubtably categorized as festivals, which need a home. Just like mushroom festival and strawberry festival need food festival. Someone is always free to start a distinctly different discussion on the sports events inclusion issue, or the "are trade shows considered attractions or mini-festivals" issue. Earflaps ( talk) 16:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • (btw, it wasn't my idea to include "multi-sports events" and "international sporting competitions" in the festival tree, some genius decided to do that a long time ago, I assume out of laziness. I myself never put individual sporting events into a festival cat, unless that page makes it explicit the event was considered a festival by organizers or historians/journalists). Earflaps ( talk) 16:50, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • This gives a whole new direction to the discussion. When we remove sport games and competitions from the tree and only leave the "real" festivals, the categories become much more acceptable, at least for me. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:17, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and just a created upper layer. In what sense are automobile industry shows "sports"? But there they are - maybe someone wore a baseball cap whilst visiting...Why not Burning Man, lots of hacky-sack and frisbee played there - and it's fun, which apparently is a criterion - by the way if I don't like watching cricket or golf or bowling does that make them un-fun? Ah the subjectivity again... Contrived category. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:32, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Note to Carlossuarez46 - I recommend you check the category again, "automobile industry shows" are not a subcategory or part of the event definition, it was changed a while back. "Fun" is also not a part of the definition in any way - only whether the sports event organizers/historians explicitly call it a festival. Earflaps ( talk) 19:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC) reply
You still have no way round the rule at WP:SHAREDNAME. – Fayenatic L ondon 23:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC) reply
I've made several perfectly good arguments around that rule, I've becoming increasingly baffled. THe rule reads, "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." Please explain how "sports" is a non-defining characteristic of sports festival? I mean, is "food" not a defining characteristic of "food festival"? (so baffled...) Also, "sports festival" has been shown in the discussion above to be a unique and defined topic. A festival focused predominantly on sports, or a festival called a sports festival by its organizers. Not "event," which can mean anything, a competition, private race, betting event, fundraising convention, etc. Earflaps ( talk) 15:57, 18 February 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Earflaps: It is "festival" that is the problem here. You have created a sub-category of sports events for the ones where the organisers happen to have included the word "festival" in the name. Well, this would include about half the events listed in the article Highland games; but that word clearly does not amount to a WP:DEFINING difference between those and the other half. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
"but that word clearly does not amount to a WP:DEFINING difference between those and the other half." - um, care to explain why not? If an organizer calls their event a concert, not a festival (see Live8), isn't that relevant? Earflaps ( talk) 02:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Earflaps: Look at the sub-lists for Canada and Highland_games#United_States. Do you imagine that e.g. the "San Diego Scottish Highland Games & Gathering of the Clans", and "Seaside Highland Games" in Ventura, are less festive than the "Sacramento Valley Scottish Games & Festival" and "Elizabeth Celtic Festival" which include your magic word? – Fayenatic L ondon 11:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge with Category:Sports events tree. The topic we seem to be defining here is an event involving sports that does not fit well into the idea of Category:Sports competitions. We already have a place for that within the "sports event" tree. I feel that a broad festival definition involving relative age, remuneration and gatherings outlined above is far too subjective for the category system. Non-explicitly competitive sports events can sit happily in the sports event category. The demarcation is not as clear as the original creator proposes: most major sports events feature a participatory/celebration element; I have personally been involved in these elements for Eurobasket and the Olympic Games, for example. Nearly all major athletics championships (and many non-major events) have associated mass races or kids events, ranging from the world half marathon championships to the annual New York Grand Prix. Practically 90% of American track and field meets have youth participatory elements. The given definition is going to include a far larger number of events that I think the original creator realises. SFB 11:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Note - um, Sillyfolkboy, according to your argument, every festival subcategory should be deleted and merged into Category:Events. A music event (see Sanremo Music Festival) can be a music competition, concert, and a music festival at the same time, but those event types are not synonymous even slightly, hence separate Category:Music competitions and Category:Concerts and Category:Music festivals categories. And with that example, I don't see how merging those three categories would do any good whatsoever, regardless of which category ends up being bigger. The "celebratory" aspect of any event also seems irrelevant, since most social "events" of all sorts usually have a celebratory or participatory element. Doesn't make it a festival or not, only whether the organizers/the culture/researchers call it a festival explicitly, just like how it is with music events. Earflaps ( talk) 02:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note - Ijust completely rewrote the description, tried to incorporate a lot of the previous comments - also changed some subcats (I'd been waiting for confirmation that someone else thought "multi-sport events" didn't belong as a child before I changing the precedent, but User:Marcocapelle made a comment above, so here goes.)
See also: Category:International sports competitions and Category:Multi-sport events

This category is for sports festivals, or festivals that focus predominantly on sports or sporting. Also referred to as sporting festivals or athletic festivals, some of the earliest recorded sports festivals were the multi-sport Panathenaic Games and Olympic Games, which are also categorized as multi-sport events. More recent examples of multi-sport festivals include the Arirang Festival in North Korea.

Other sporting festivals focus on only one sport, such as mountaineering festivals, equestrian festivals, or gymnastics festivals. Sporting festivals focused on transportation sports, like motorcycle rallies, boat festivals, hot air balloon festivals, or sailing festivals, may include attractions such as races, air shows, auto shows, or boat shows. Culturally specific multi-sport festivals such as the Australian sports carnival are also categorized here.

— New intro as of 3/3 Earflaps ( talk) 13:43, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm no friend of lengthy inclusion rationales. Generally, the title of a category and possibly a few clarifying comments should suffice to describe its content. How about this:
This category collects single- or multi-sport events that are described as festivals for celebrating a tradition of amateur sporting beyond the competitive character of semi-professional sports.
The main article for this category is Sports festivals.
We can probably do better, but IMHO this should be a viable working basis. -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Earflaps: following my objection above that only some Highland games events would be categorized as "festivals" under your previous suggestion, because only some of their organisers happened to include the word "festival" when naming the event, your last line about Australian sports carnival seems designed to bypass that problem. However, the long paragraph description still fails to define specific inclusion criteria; in effect it says "these are some things that I think are festivals". @ PanchoS: are you proposing instead to change the inclusion criterion from "whose name includes the word 'festival'" to "described as festivals", and if so, described where? – Fayenatic L ondon 14:19, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Fayenatic london: I never proposed automatically following the self-styled title of an event. We never do that. We're describing topics by what WP:RS say, and the same holds for how we're categorizing topics. So, basically yes: an event named "Festival" may lack the typical characteristics of a sports festival, while another event may be named otherwise – in non-English language countries this may even be the standard case – but still constitute a sports festival. -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Well, following the name was explicitly an earlier suggestion by Earflaps. Your alternative criteria sound justifiable in theory but hard to implement and demonstrate in practice. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Consistently with my earlier reaction and in contrast to User:PanchoS, I think the main article can't be Sports festivals because it redirects to Multi-sports event which has its own category and by the way I would also avoid any reference to multi-sports events with examples like the Panathenaic Games and Olympic Games in the text of the header. Just a "see also" should be sufficient. I agree with PanchoS that it's not necessary to give all those examples in the header. The main issue is that the "festival" aspect should be more clearly defined (that is the main concern of User:Fayenatic london) and I'm honestly surprised that the article Festival is so limited in scope that it can hardly be used as a starting point for defining sports festivals. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:26, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • OK, true, it can't be main article here, as it is still a redirect to a more specific article. This wasn't at the heart of my proposal though. It's so sad nobody finds enough time to write a proper main article. -- PanchoS ( talk) 19:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC) reply
In all AGF cannot believe that this discussion has got this far, and that such a large qualifier statement on the main space of the category is required. The category should be able to stand alone without any qualifications, and it currently doesnt and I cannot believe that such a length of time can be taken up with this. Culturally specific multi-sport festivals such as the Australian sports carnival is weird, and as an Australian, I object to such an appropriation, sociologically or ethnographically speaking they are not festivities they are sports events. JarrahTree 14:48, 4 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • A month on, Earflaps has removed that Australia-related sentence. [6] The current attempted definition on the category page starts "festivals that focus predominantly on sports or sporting". As the page Festival says "A festival is an event ordinarily celebrated by a community and centering on some characteristic aspect of that community and its religion or traditions, often marked as a local or national holiday", I fail to see how many of the present sub-cats meet that definition. In particular, the final sentence on the category page about single-sport transportation events which are claimed to be "festivals" states "may include attractions such as… auto shows…". Those are trade events which are so far away from "community" that this category has no clear focus. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I also find the comparison with music festivals misleading. A "music festival" is commonly understood as a gathering of people around a series of music performances by a variety of musicians. A "sports festival" is no where near having such a commonly understood and shared definition as the compound phrase "music festival". SFB 22:13, 8 April 2016 (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:Web operating systems

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Most of the articles in this category aren't actually operating systems, they are Web desktops. Even though some people call web desktops "web operating systems", the former is the better name since generally speaking they aren't operating systems at all, but rather web apps that try to emulate the appearance of the classic GUI desktop environment SJK ( talk) 10:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support. This could be a speedy per C2C. The article is Web desktop. While there is a page at Web operating system, it's up for AfD, and is clearly a WP:DABCONCEPT, bordering on WP:DICDEF page about various marketing and jargon uses of the phrase "Web operating system", which has been applied in multiple ways, which do not form a conceptual category.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:23, 4 February 2016 (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:Fictional operating systems

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, and Category:Fictional artificial intelligences seems to be the target with the best fit. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Most of the entries in this category appear to be fictional characters or fictional places. In what sense are those fictional characters or places actually "operating systems"? Even if they are referred to by that term in canon, in what sense do they actually belong under Category:Operating systems. A person comes to Category:Operating systems because they want to learn about computer operating systems, not about fancruft. SJK ( talk) 09:55, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
One of the entries in this category is even a film I, Robot (film). I've seen that film, one of its characters is an artificially intelligent computer. Even if we assume that an artificially intelligent computer has an operating system, the artificial intelligence might not be the actual operating system (as opposed to an application which runs under it). SJK ( talk) 09:57, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Fictional software and rediffuse as possible; and cleanup -- 70.51.200.135 ( talk) 06:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per the above, after clearing out entries that are not even fictional software, broadly conceived.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:25, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment While I do not consider fictional categories to be fancruft, I am actually puzzled by some entries in this category. HAL 9000 is a sentient computer who happens to control the operating systems of a ship. Edwin Jarvis is a human character with over 50 years of appearances, who happens to be depicted as an artificial intelligence in recent adaptations. Chi (Chobits) is a sentient personal computer in human form. Are computers supposed to be categorized as "operating systems"? Dimadick ( talk) 21:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Indeed, I think part of the problem is that - an operating system is not just a computer or any old piece of computer software, it is a particular layer of software in a computer. Fictional works, when they include computer systems, rarely address them at the degree of specificity to talk about the different layers of software involved. In real world computer systems, there is a distinction between different layers - microcode, firmware, hypervisors, operating systems, libraries and frameworks and middleware, and then finally applications on top of all of that. Fictional works rarely bother to carefully distinguish these layers, since the distinction is not particularly relevant to the general population. The mistake of this category then, is to identify fictional computers with one of those layers, when very few fictional works do so - and even when a few do, the fact that they do so is probably not significant enough to deserve a category. SJK ( talk) 02:06, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge but not to Category:Fictional software, instead to Category:Fictional artificial intelligences. This isn't about software, it's about hybrid human-computer based characters. Merging to software and then do a cleanup, as suggested earlier, would merely result in just everything being purged. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:59, 25 February 2016 (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:Fellow Members of the SME

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING, WP:OCASSOC and WP:SMALLCAT.
All 3 of these categories were created to house just 1 biography article: Ben Wang. (A second article has since been added in one case.) Certainly we group people in Category:Fellows of learned societies of the United States when there is a main article to establish notability for that status. But none of these have a main article, it's not clear if these are formal "fellows" or informal "fellow members", and the existence of fellowships aren't even mentioned in the organizational articles: 1 SME (society), 2 Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering, or 3 Institute of Industrial Engineers. (Alternatively, if kept, all 3 categories should be renamed based on the actual article names.) - RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Disavian as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Engineering. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support deletion unless the problems raised by the nominator are solved within the next 8 days. -- PanchoS ( talk) 10:05, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. SJK ( talk) 04:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I made the categories under the theory that other articles would organically appear in them, which has happened with a couple other academic society categories that I've created in the past. Since that's not the case, support deleting them. Disavian ( talk) 01:20, 31 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Became made a Fellow of a society is dome evidcne of notability, but essentially it is an award: we do not like award categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:15, 2 February 2016 (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:Establishments in Czechoslovakia by century

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 categories, while upmerging contents per the discussion as proposed by Fayenatic london. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the millennium discussions here, I think these centuries category are not relevant for Czechoslovakia since it only existed from 1918-1992 or entirely in the 20th century. As such, the Establishments by century category is a category of one. Ricky81682 ( talk) 01:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. By the way it wouldn't surprise me if there are a couple more similar categories belonging to countries existing for less than a century. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:11, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I agree but those can be done as speedy deletion nominations. There's no need to rename and merge like the millennium ones. the Soviet Union is an obvious one. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Make that Category:Television in Czechoslovakia. – Fayenatic L ondon 00:07, 7 February 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Okay let's do it that way and have this nomination closed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:57, 14 May 2016 (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:Towns_in_XYZ_district

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: allow creation and expansion of Category:Cities in India by state or territory, by creating similar categories as Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh‎. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC) reply
The following categories were tagged, so I will rename them as follows to start this off:
Category:Cities and towns in Chittoor district to Category:Towns in Chittoor district
Category:Cities and towns in East Godavari district to Category:Towns in East Godavari district
Category:Cities and towns in Kadapa district to Category:Towns in Kadapa district
Category:Cities and towns in Nellore district to Category:Towns in Nellore district
– Fayenatic L ondon 18:20, 5 April 2016 (UTC) reply


Cities and towns are different as per 2011 Census of India. Hence, as per the definition Cities are population with 1,00,000 and towns below them with (Class - I to Class - V). It may have started and grown up and uniformity was maintained but adding all in one category cannot be distinguished. Its like adding all sets under one name, it may be census town, statutory town or a city. So, I say there should be separate category named Category:Towns_in_XYZ_district.-- Vin09  (talk) 04:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Support - We can have Separate Categories for both towns and cities in a distinguished way swaroop 06:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sakthi swaroop ( talk • contribs)
  • Need clarification, which exact categories would you like to have deleted, renamed or merged and (if any of the latter two) to what? See the nominations above on how to properly present the nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note This incomplete nomination (see WP:CFD#HOWTO) refers to Category:Cities and towns in India by district and its 678 subcategories. Pinging Marcocapelle.
    @ Vin09: I'm not yet convinced of separating towns and cities at district level, but am ready to take further arguments into account. Either way, as promised on your talk page, I'm ready to help you with filing a correct CfD request and tagging the affected 679 categories, so we all can properly discuss the issue. Best regards, PanchoS ( talk) 09:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS and Marcocapelle:, definitely I obey you. I would like Category:Cities and towns in Kurnool district to Category:Towns in Kurnool district, this applies to all the similar categories. For example, take Andhra Pradesh. Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh justifies the city categorization. Also, Category:Towns in Kurnool district for towns, can also create Category:Cities in Kurnool district if required. But Category:Cities and towns in Kurnool district can't differentiate which is a city and which is a town. We have Category:Villages in Kurnool district which says all the entries all villages.-- Vin09  (talk) 13:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I got your point to add subst:cfr on category page but, here it is related to many pages. Do I need to add on each page?-- Vin09  (talk) 13:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hey, @ Vin09: I hope I got your idea right.
    I basically agree we should separate Indian cities from mere towns on a state-level, like Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh. With cities being defined as > 100.000 inhabitants, looking at List of cities in India by population it seems there are plenty of cities in most of the 29 states and 7 territories to justify per-state categorization of cities. It however remains to be shown if most of the 683 districts have enough cities to justify per-district categorization of cities. This is the open question in need of clarification.
    Now if we went down to district level for cities, we would probably start creating the cities by district categories for all of these districts as subcategory of the cities and towns by district categories.
    Then, in a final step, we might want to take the cities and towns by district categories to WP:CFD, or we might want to leave them as they are. As cities are a specific subset of towns rather than a completely different thing, we might want to argue the wording Towns by district perfectly embraces the districts cities (in their subcategory) by definition. Or we might argue to keep the wording Cities and towns by district, if we think cities must be explicitly mentioned to be properly included.
    IMHO, we should find an answer to the open question, how many cities the average district would contain. In case there are enough cities, we would then proceed with creating the cities-per-district subcategories, and would only then come back to WP:CfD.
    Is this a plan matching what you had in mind? What does Marcocapelle and what do others think about it?
    Cheers, PanchoS ( talk) 13:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: It need not be in district. check Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh. We can denote them state wise. Also, check Category:Census towns in Andhra Pradesh. Census towns are again a different set of category.-- Vin09  (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Vin09: OK, if you don't want to categorize cities by district anymore, then things are even more straightforward: As cities remain a subset of towns, we just need to create additional cities-by-state categories and add all cities to these new categories. No category rename involved.
Unsure if census towns can be generally considered a subset of towns, too, but that shouldn't be our current problem. -- PanchoS ( talk) 13:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS:I think cities are not subset of towns, while there are many towns in a city like smaller municipalities under its urban agglomeration. If we can add cities to new category. What is the need of Cities word in Cities and towns in XYZ district. But still, I obey with your statement.-- Vin09  (talk) 13:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Vin09: C'mon, this is not about obedience. We just need to be clear about the definitions and category scopes before muddling through this enormous number of articles and categories.
More and more I think we need a properly sourced, authoritative definition of the different types of communities in India, going beyond what exists in the lead of List of towns in India by population and the article Municipal governance in India. Are populated communities with 100.000+ inhabitants automatically cities, as defined in the former? Or is there a fundamental difference between towns and cities, as you're suggesting? Or is the city an optional administrative layer above the administrative layer of towns, as the latter article is suggesting? (and in the latter case: are there both cities comprising a single town, and cities comprising several towns?)
I'm really with you that we need some kind of differentiation there, but before starting large-scale category operations involving ten thousands of articles, we really should get this straight. Regards, PanchoS ( talk) 14:17, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: As per Census of India 2011 every city qualifies to be a city if it satisfies 1lakh criteria. Please go through THIS PDF. I've done work on most of the pages. Feel free to ask anymore questions if you need info.-- Vin09  (talk) 14:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Vin09: Sorry if my nitpicking makes you angry. This is not my intention.
However, it's usually the nominator's duty to present a clear proposal backed by the full argumentation, in order to convince other editors why a long-standing categorization scheme should be profoundly changed. This is even more necessary if a change of the categorization scheme involves 10.000s of articles, possibly much more, and if the definitions and distinctions are not properly given and sourced in an article. Now, the PDF file you presented gives definitions about "statutory towns", "census towns", "outgrowths", and "urban agglomerations". Am I getting it right that with "cities" you're referring to "urban agglomerations"? Furthermore, is this "urban agglomeration" what would usually and internationally be considered a "city" or is it just a statistical category devoid of any real-life significance? Furthermore, on which basis are "census towns" to be considered towns or not? And how would we treat "outgrowths"?
All of these aspects are totally unclear to me, and possibly other readers here. IMHO, there's no way really around a properly sourced definition of these concepts and its inclusion criteria, and a coherent argumentation why we would draw these lines. I might find some time to read up on this subject tonight, but I can't promise. -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ PanchoS: I will explain you clearly. All these applies only to India.

  • City: population with 1 lakh and above
  • Town:Under 1 lakh population (all municipalities, Nagar panchayats towns and are more commonly known with the name Statutory towns)
  • Census Town: Characteristics/Qualifies to be a Town but not a town, in between a village and a town
  • Village:a rural settlement

Any more info please feel free to write.-- Vin09  (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Still no answers to my questions. Still no rationale for what should beer changed how and why. On this basis, I'm opposing this botched nomination. -- PanchoS ( talk) 16:40, 29 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: You said you will read concepts in the above para. I explained it clearly, provided sources. Couldn't get your question on what you need info? @ Titodutta: as he is an admin from India and aware these concepts.-- Vin09  (talk) 06:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Probably a good idea. May others weigh in. -- PanchoS ( talk) 06:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Meanwhile, please see the example if you may get any idea : Guntur (city) and Repalle town are categorized in Category:Cities and towns in Guntur district. Now, a reader may think either both as a city, or both as a town and sometimes Repalle as a city and Guntur as a town. Infact, Guntur is a city and Repalle is a town. So, if we categorize Guntur (city) under Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh and Repalle (town) in Category:Towns in Guntur district it's very easy for a reader to understand which are towns and which are cities.-- Vin09  (talk) 06:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
I accept your statement in the above para which states:

:OK, if you don't want to categorize cities by district anymore, then things are even more straightforward: As cities remain a subset of towns, we just need to create additional cities-by-state categories and add all cities to these new categories. No category rename involved.
Unsure if census towns can be generally considered a subset of towns, too, but that shouldn't be our current problem.

What do you say?-- Vin09  (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply

@ Vin09: So cities are nothing else than a subset of towns, right? If larger than 100,000, towns are named "city", and while some administrative privileges may be tied to the status of a city, the city otherwise represents the same area and the same administrative layer as a town would do? Is this all correct? If yes, then we should be ready to proceed creating the remaining subcategories of Category:Cities in India by state or territory, such as Category:Cities in Andhra Pradesh‎ :) -- PanchoS ( talk) 08:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
@ PanchoS: First of all I would thank you for this discussion, as we were following Census 2011 and Census 2001 definitions together that made the confusion. Census 2001 definitions were modified now. So, now I say go ahead I support what you said above. I would need your help in future as well, if I get stuck at any issue. Thank you. Cheers!-- Vin09  (talk) 08:39, 30 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In India 100,000 is a lakh. This is thus a notable boundary. If the definition is accepted for more than the purposes of the 2011 census, I think we could allow the distinction and have a split for each state between towns and cities. Both should be sub-cats of "Populated places in foo". However, I do not think we should have towns or cities by district: there are unlikely to be enough in each district to make a category big enough to be worth having. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_29&oldid=1210399678"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE