Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 30 November 1 >

October 31

Category:Tri-State Conference (1960–1978)

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. Any merger proposals should be considered in a subsequent nomination. MER-C 20:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Tri-State Conference (1960–1981) existed until 1981, not 1978. See this 1981 article among others. Note that the 1981 article here mistakenly identifies the conference's first year of competition as 1961–62. This 1960 article, among others, shows that the conference clearly existed in the fall of 1960. Jweiss11 ( talk) 22:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom To match the name of the main article. Dimadick ( talk) 16:44, 8 November 2020 (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:Pwani Region, Tanzania

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category Mike Peel ( talk) 21:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject participants that don't want software updates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Originally created as request for a since-banned user not to contact you (note that the category is currently empty) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:1st millennium in Ukraine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:1st millennium in Ukraine

Water sports

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 13:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
13 more decade categories
118 more year categories
Nominator's rationale: inclusivity and avoidance of ambiguity.
The term " aquatics" is ambiguous: it may refer solely to sports conducted in the water, such as swimming or diving; but it may also include sports conducted on the water, such as canoeing, surfing and sailing. This ambiguity makes it unsuitable as a key word in categorisation.
The by-year head articles such as 2019 in aquatic sports all use the inclusive meaning of "aquatics", so it seems most helpful for the categories to use the unambiguous term. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename somehow An alternative, closer to the present name, might be Category:Aquatic sports. I find "aquatics" (without more) to be an obscure term. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Supercategorize to the nominator's proposed names. "aquatics" is what is governed by FINA (swimming and diving from shore into water; and waterpolo), who hold the World Aquatics Championship, and is a member federation of the IOC; and similar swimming/diving sports. Watersports also include sports that use powered implements, devices, and, vehicles -- 67.70.32.97 ( talk) 10:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • The problem with that is that as I explained in the nomination, "aquatics" is ambiguous. One meaning has a scope correlating with FINA ... but the other meaning is broader. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:Radio Free Roscoe

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 13:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a television series without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant an eponymous category. The contents here include two standalone articles about individual episodes which have been put up for AFD as unsourced, a DVD box which has been put up for AFD as unsourced, a soundtrack album which has been put up for AFD as unsourced, and a navbox template which has been put up for TFD as it won't be necessary anymore once the unsourced cruft is deleted. All that's left otherwise is the eponym and its episode list, which already crosslink each other in body text and thus don't need a category to group two things together. As always, every TV show does not always automatically get one of these just because it exists. Bearcat ( talk) 03:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Note that all of the stuff that got listed for AFD has now been deleted, so all that's left anymore is the head article, the episode list, and the navbox that's up for deletion at TFD as a navbox isn't necessary just to link the head article to the episode list. Bearcat ( talk) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Followup #2, navbox now gone as well, so the eponym and the episode list are literally all that's left. Bearcat ( talk) 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:Azteca 7 affiliates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 13:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There's no affiliation when the network owns the transmitter/station directly *and* there are few to no deviations in programming—the case with the articles in these cats. Raymie ( t • c) 05:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:3d gameplay wargames

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; add Category:Board wargames to article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Single-member category with unclear scope. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:Whitesnake remix albums

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, merging article as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category only has one item, and there is no other category for heavy metal remix albums made by a single artist, let alone ones with only one item. JJPMaster ( talk) 16:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:5 Plus

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; upmerge contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category only contains one page and is therefore useless. Iaintfaking ( talk) 10:01, 31 October 2020 (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:Twin people from Armenia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. MER-C 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Totally unnecessary category. PepperBeast (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2020 (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:Cancelled Fallout video games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 14#Category:Cancelled Fallout video games

The entire "Reportedly haunted locations" tree

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
24 national, 8 provincial, 41 state, 7 regional + 15 city subcategories
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:PROMO, WP:OCVENUE and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
There are really three issues causing this tree to be non-defining:
1. Halloween Articles: Many of the articles have reliable sources attesting to the hauntings. The problem is that those reliable sources are just kidding during last week of October: Whaley House cites a Time Magazine article from October 30, The Octagon House cites the Washington Post from October 24, Waitomo Caves Hotel cites Stuff from October 29, and St. Ignatius Hospital cites ABC News from October 26. Usually these are tongue-in-cheek stories from the events section covering local historic sites that may promote hay rides and haunted houses.
2: Ghost Shows: There are several reality shows that tape an episode at different reportedly haunted locations, Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures being the most prominent. There are a subset of articles (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that appear in this category solely because they were used as a venue on such a series.
3: The Underlying Claim There are many people with a sincere belief in ghosts and the supernatural and those beliefs often include a lot of variables influencing the ability to interact with the spirt world: location, time of day or year, the skill of a person (intentionally or not) to channel or be a medium are often perceived factors. What might be obviously haunted to someone would seem perfectly mundane to someone else. In other words, the claim being made here is inherently subjective, which is tacitly acknowledged by naming the categories as "reportedly" haunted. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Background The category was renamed from Category:Haunted houses in this 2011 nom and was unsucessfully proposed for a merger later in 2011. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Being "haunted" is 100% a defining feature of several of these places. If there is a sufficient mass of "haunted" places to form a tree, that may be up to debate but the solution is to remove joke sources (objection 1). I'm not sure that I understand #3: some persons believe that the Holocaust never happened and some believe in angels, etc. The fact that someone does or does not have some belief doesn't stop us from having categories. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Perhaps I explained #3 poorly. This category tree is based on verifiable "reports" of subjective beliefs; we can't verify the underlying claim that a place is actually haunted by reliable sources though. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Koafv. As to the points: (1) I don't understand - is it a thing in the US to have spoof articles about places before Hallowe'en? Certainly there would be articles about reputedly haunted places, given the season, but I don't understand why there would need to be spoof ones, given that there are enough places with that reputation seems unnecessary... and I've certainly never heard of it happening in this part of the world. Certainly the Waitomo Hotel reference is not to a spoof. The St. Ignatius Hospital article has several references to the reputed haunting, only one of which is in October. Ditto Whaley House. As you said - reliable sources. 2) Cause and effect. If a place is reputedly haunted, it is more likely to appear on the show- not the other way round. 3) The detectability or otherwise of purported ghosts is irrelevant - what's important is the reputation of the place as haunted. This argument is akin to saying we should delete t Category:Colors because some people are colourblind. Grutness... wha? 02:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strictly purge, then upmerge if small (e.g. up to 5 articles) - that would probably result in most of the categories being deleted. Most of the articles are about buildings, towns etc in which a reported haunting is just one of many attributes the place has (or just one of many events that have taken place there) (albeit the attribute/event that may be if most interest to some editors/readers). We don't categorize buildings, towns etc as crime locations, disaster locations etc.
In an article such as Firmat the supposed haunting (that has a rational explanation) of one object has caused the categorization of a town. Presumably, if there was a more specific article (e.g. for the relevant suburb) the "haunted location" category would be removed from the town article - that's an indication that this isn't proper categorization.
If any of the articles are really about a supposed ghost then they should be retitled (e.g. from "Foobar House" to "Foobar House ghost") and recategorized as such. DexDor (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strictly purge and curate. RevelationDirect has got it right. A great many of these cats include articles with material cited to frivolous, poorly sourced, or fringe "ghost expert" sources. Some articles about locations are cited entirely to ghost enthusiast sources or TV shows. They are almost as bad as the "List of reportedly haunted locations in X" articles, which have devolved into a bulletin board for believers and a playground for creative trolls. Certainly they should be kept if they are legitimately notable in WP:FRIND sources. The problem is, every good-faith editor agrees we should keep these articles, but nobody actually wants to do the tedious work of keeping them free of crap. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Abstain/Comment instead of Keep. These haunted location category lists by country are a valuable aid to journalists around the world looking for story leads, who can then contact the local or national skeptics group or university professor for an alternative explanation, so while the Wikipedia article itself might be currently lacking in sufficient skepticism, local print and TV reporters may attempt to balance it out for their audience to avoid taking a position. Not saying it always works that way, but it often does. 5Q5| ✉ 14:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ 5Q5: To be clear, I proposed "keeping" Category:Lists of reportedly haunted locations and have not nominated any of the list articles for deletion. Do you favor/oppose deleting the categories for individual building articles? RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
On second thought, I've decided to abstain from this vote. Apparently there is a Category:Reportedly haunted locations and Category:Lists of reportedly haunted locations and one might be a subcategory of the other or whatever. To be honest, this is a level of confusion that I'd rather not burden myself with right now trying to sort out. I'll leave it to your best judgment. My point in my voided Keep vote was to please remember the need for mainstream journalists to find story leads. Sometimes the resulting article can end up as skeptical reference for an otherwise weak article and the public might learn about a skeptics organization they could support because a spokesperson was interviewed. 5Q5| ✉ 15:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
There are many things that a journalist/researcher might be interested in (towns that have been flooded, houses affected by fire, places visited by King Foobar ...) and the category system isn't set up to provide lists like that (see e.g. WP:DNWAUC). In such cases the journalist is probably better off using Google (which, of course, includes wp articles in its trawl) than using wp categorization. DexDor (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep For many locations this is their main claim to fame. The categories are defining. Dimadick ( talk) 19:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
For a location "main claim to fame" isn't quite the same thing as being a defining characteristic. For example, many towns are famous worldwide because of a particular event (e.g. a disaster), but we don't categorize them for that; we just categorize them for being a town. 
I've looked at quite a few of the articles in these categories and I dont think any of them mentioned being "reportedly haunted" in the 1st paragraph so I'm not sure they'd even meet the "main claim to fame" test. DexDor (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete purely subjective. Reported by whom? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete entirely subjective designation, WP:NONDEF for most. ( t · c) buidhe 23:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, now a place being haunted is subjective, now there can't be provided any reliable sources that those would exist, I mean if is a traditional story it can be included in the article as long as that belief actually exist, but I don't see how those categories would fill many places in those countries, espically as those horror story can be made-on-the-place. Now this category is also wording it like this paranormal actually exist although there's not proof of it, it would be better to include all the places in the world and not influence the point that paranormal exist but rather to say that that place is said to be haunted. Editoneer ( talk) 07:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Reliable sources can't report that a place is haunted, but they can report that it has the reputation of being haunted. If we needed reliable sources for the fact of the haunting, how would we even have an article on Ghosts? BD2412 T 05:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ BD2412: You're description sounds exactly like WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. How is this different than categorizing by having reliable sources about restaurants having reputations for deliciousness and mountains having reputations for beauty? RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:39, 15 November 2020 (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/2020_October_31&oldid=991359443"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 30 November 1 >

October 31

Category:Tri-State Conference (1960–1978)

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. Any merger proposals should be considered in a subsequent nomination. MER-C 20:11, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Tri-State Conference (1960–1981) existed until 1981, not 1978. See this 1981 article among others. Note that the 1981 article here mistakenly identifies the conference's first year of competition as 1961–62. This 1960 article, among others, shows that the conference clearly existed in the fall of 1960. Jweiss11 ( talk) 22:21, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom To match the name of the main article. Dimadick ( talk) 16:44, 8 November 2020 (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:Pwani Region, Tanzania

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category Mike Peel ( talk) 21:56, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject participants that don't want software updates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Originally created as request for a since-banned user not to contact you (note that the category is currently empty) * Pppery * it has begun... 22:05, 8 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:1st millennium in Ukraine

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 29#Category:1st millennium in Ukraine

Water sports

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 13:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
13 more decade categories
118 more year categories
Nominator's rationale: inclusivity and avoidance of ambiguity.
The term " aquatics" is ambiguous: it may refer solely to sports conducted in the water, such as swimming or diving; but it may also include sports conducted on the water, such as canoeing, surfing and sailing. This ambiguity makes it unsuitable as a key word in categorisation.
The by-year head articles such as 2019 in aquatic sports all use the inclusive meaning of "aquatics", so it seems most helpful for the categories to use the unambiguous term. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:41, 2 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename somehow An alternative, closer to the present name, might be Category:Aquatic sports. I find "aquatics" (without more) to be an obscure term. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Supercategorize to the nominator's proposed names. "aquatics" is what is governed by FINA (swimming and diving from shore into water; and waterpolo), who hold the World Aquatics Championship, and is a member federation of the IOC; and similar swimming/diving sports. Watersports also include sports that use powered implements, devices, and, vehicles -- 67.70.32.97 ( talk) 10:29, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
    • The problem with that is that as I explained in the nomination, "aquatics" is ambiguous. One meaning has a scope correlating with FINA ... but the other meaning is broader. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:19, 7 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:Radio Free Roscoe

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 13:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a television series without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant an eponymous category. The contents here include two standalone articles about individual episodes which have been put up for AFD as unsourced, a DVD box which has been put up for AFD as unsourced, a soundtrack album which has been put up for AFD as unsourced, and a navbox template which has been put up for TFD as it won't be necessary anymore once the unsourced cruft is deleted. All that's left otherwise is the eponym and its episode list, which already crosslink each other in body text and thus don't need a category to group two things together. As always, every TV show does not always automatically get one of these just because it exists. Bearcat ( talk) 03:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Note that all of the stuff that got listed for AFD has now been deleted, so all that's left anymore is the head article, the episode list, and the navbox that's up for deletion at TFD as a navbox isn't necessary just to link the head article to the episode list. Bearcat ( talk) 17:04, 15 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Followup #2, navbox now gone as well, so the eponym and the episode list are literally all that's left. Bearcat ( talk) 17:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:Azteca 7 affiliates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 13:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There's no affiliation when the network owns the transmitter/station directly *and* there are few to no deviations in programming—the case with the articles in these cats. Raymie ( t • c) 05:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:3d gameplay wargames

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; add Category:Board wargames to article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Single-member category with unclear scope. – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 03:19, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:Whitesnake remix albums

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, merging article as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category only has one item, and there is no other category for heavy metal remix albums made by a single artist, let alone ones with only one item. JJPMaster ( talk) 16:43, 6 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:43, 31 October 2020 (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:5 Plus

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; upmerge contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category only contains one page and is therefore useless. Iaintfaking ( talk) 10:01, 31 October 2020 (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:Twin people from Armenia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. MER-C 20:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Totally unnecessary category. PepperBeast (talk) 02:52, 31 October 2020 (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:Cancelled Fallout video games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 14#Category:Cancelled Fallout video games

The entire "Reportedly haunted locations" tree

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC) reply
24 national, 8 provincial, 41 state, 7 regional + 15 city subcategories
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:RSCONTEXT, WP:PROMO, WP:OCVENUE and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
There are really three issues causing this tree to be non-defining:
1. Halloween Articles: Many of the articles have reliable sources attesting to the hauntings. The problem is that those reliable sources are just kidding during last week of October: Whaley House cites a Time Magazine article from October 30, The Octagon House cites the Washington Post from October 24, Waitomo Caves Hotel cites Stuff from October 29, and St. Ignatius Hospital cites ABC News from October 26. Usually these are tongue-in-cheek stories from the events section covering local historic sites that may promote hay rides and haunted houses.
2: Ghost Shows: There are several reality shows that tape an episode at different reportedly haunted locations, Ghost Hunters and Ghost Adventures being the most prominent. There are a subset of articles (examples: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) that appear in this category solely because they were used as a venue on such a series.
3: The Underlying Claim There are many people with a sincere belief in ghosts and the supernatural and those beliefs often include a lot of variables influencing the ability to interact with the spirt world: location, time of day or year, the skill of a person (intentionally or not) to channel or be a medium are often perceived factors. What might be obviously haunted to someone would seem perfectly mundane to someone else. In other words, the claim being made here is inherently subjective, which is tacitly acknowledged by naming the categories as "reportedly" haunted. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:05, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Background The category was renamed from Category:Haunted houses in this 2011 nom and was unsucessfully proposed for a merger later in 2011. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep Being "haunted" is 100% a defining feature of several of these places. If there is a sufficient mass of "haunted" places to form a tree, that may be up to debate but the solution is to remove joke sources (objection 1). I'm not sure that I understand #3: some persons believe that the Holocaust never happened and some believe in angels, etc. The fact that someone does or does not have some belief doesn't stop us from having categories. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:57, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
Perhaps I explained #3 poorly. This category tree is based on verifiable "reports" of subjective beliefs; we can't verify the underlying claim that a place is actually haunted by reliable sources though. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:33, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Koafv. As to the points: (1) I don't understand - is it a thing in the US to have spoof articles about places before Hallowe'en? Certainly there would be articles about reputedly haunted places, given the season, but I don't understand why there would need to be spoof ones, given that there are enough places with that reputation seems unnecessary... and I've certainly never heard of it happening in this part of the world. Certainly the Waitomo Hotel reference is not to a spoof. The St. Ignatius Hospital article has several references to the reputed haunting, only one of which is in October. Ditto Whaley House. As you said - reliable sources. 2) Cause and effect. If a place is reputedly haunted, it is more likely to appear on the show- not the other way round. 3) The detectability or otherwise of purported ghosts is irrelevant - what's important is the reputation of the place as haunted. This argument is akin to saying we should delete t Category:Colors because some people are colourblind. Grutness... wha? 02:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strictly purge, then upmerge if small (e.g. up to 5 articles) - that would probably result in most of the categories being deleted. Most of the articles are about buildings, towns etc in which a reported haunting is just one of many attributes the place has (or just one of many events that have taken place there) (albeit the attribute/event that may be if most interest to some editors/readers). We don't categorize buildings, towns etc as crime locations, disaster locations etc.
In an article such as Firmat the supposed haunting (that has a rational explanation) of one object has caused the categorization of a town. Presumably, if there was a more specific article (e.g. for the relevant suburb) the "haunted location" category would be removed from the town article - that's an indication that this isn't proper categorization.
If any of the articles are really about a supposed ghost then they should be retitled (e.g. from "Foobar House" to "Foobar House ghost") and recategorized as such. DexDor (talk) 10:44, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Strictly purge and curate. RevelationDirect has got it right. A great many of these cats include articles with material cited to frivolous, poorly sourced, or fringe "ghost expert" sources. Some articles about locations are cited entirely to ghost enthusiast sources or TV shows. They are almost as bad as the "List of reportedly haunted locations in X" articles, which have devolved into a bulletin board for believers and a playground for creative trolls. Certainly they should be kept if they are legitimately notable in WP:FRIND sources. The problem is, every good-faith editor agrees we should keep these articles, but nobody actually wants to do the tedious work of keeping them free of crap. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 15:54, 31 October 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Abstain/Comment instead of Keep. These haunted location category lists by country are a valuable aid to journalists around the world looking for story leads, who can then contact the local or national skeptics group or university professor for an alternative explanation, so while the Wikipedia article itself might be currently lacking in sufficient skepticism, local print and TV reporters may attempt to balance it out for their audience to avoid taking a position. Not saying it always works that way, but it often does. 5Q5| ✉ 14:02, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ 5Q5: To be clear, I proposed "keeping" Category:Lists of reportedly haunted locations and have not nominated any of the list articles for deletion. Do you favor/oppose deleting the categories for individual building articles? RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:36, 1 November 2020 (UTC) reply
On second thought, I've decided to abstain from this vote. Apparently there is a Category:Reportedly haunted locations and Category:Lists of reportedly haunted locations and one might be a subcategory of the other or whatever. To be honest, this is a level of confusion that I'd rather not burden myself with right now trying to sort out. I'll leave it to your best judgment. My point in my voided Keep vote was to please remember the need for mainstream journalists to find story leads. Sometimes the resulting article can end up as skeptical reference for an otherwise weak article and the public might learn about a skeptics organization they could support because a spokesperson was interviewed. 5Q5| ✉ 15:35, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
There are many things that a journalist/researcher might be interested in (towns that have been flooded, houses affected by fire, places visited by King Foobar ...) and the category system isn't set up to provide lists like that (see e.g. WP:DNWAUC). In such cases the journalist is probably better off using Google (which, of course, includes wp articles in its trawl) than using wp categorization. DexDor (talk) 08:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep For many locations this is their main claim to fame. The categories are defining. Dimadick ( talk) 19:52, 2 November 2020 (UTC) reply
For a location "main claim to fame" isn't quite the same thing as being a defining characteristic. For example, many towns are famous worldwide because of a particular event (e.g. a disaster), but we don't categorize them for that; we just categorize them for being a town. 
I've looked at quite a few of the articles in these categories and I dont think any of them mentioned being "reportedly haunted" in the 1st paragraph so I'm not sure they'd even meet the "main claim to fame" test. DexDor (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete purely subjective. Reported by whom? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:32, 3 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete entirely subjective designation, WP:NONDEF for most. ( t · c) buidhe 23:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, now a place being haunted is subjective, now there can't be provided any reliable sources that those would exist, I mean if is a traditional story it can be included in the article as long as that belief actually exist, but I don't see how those categories would fill many places in those countries, espically as those horror story can be made-on-the-place. Now this category is also wording it like this paranormal actually exist although there's not proof of it, it would be better to include all the places in the world and not influence the point that paranormal exist but rather to say that that place is said to be haunted. Editoneer ( talk) 07:37, 13 November 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Reliable sources can't report that a place is haunted, but they can report that it has the reputation of being haunted. If we needed reliable sources for the fact of the haunting, how would we even have an article on Ghosts? BD2412 T 05:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC) reply
@ BD2412: You're description sounds exactly like WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. How is this different than categorizing by having reliable sources about restaurants having reputations for deliciousness and mountains having reputations for beauty? RevelationDirect ( talk) 19:39, 15 November 2020 (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/2020_October_31&oldid=991359443"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE