Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 November 25

: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 19:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Enemy aliens}}

:Nominator's rationale: Makes no sense in isolation. These articles should be dispersed to the categories relevant to the countries where they were deemed aliens. Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Either delete or populate. Large number of people were considered enemy aliens in many countries at the start of WWII (and also WWI I believe), there is therefore potential for a larger category, which could be subdivided in national people interned by Foo categories among others (not all enemy aliens were interned, but for those who were it was clearly defining). In its current state with 4 articles the category serves little purpose. Place Clichy (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete for now. Agree with Place Clichy that at best it would make sense for people who were interned, so rename if kept to something that reflects the internment. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Being defined as an enemy alien generally seems to have been a temporary state of affairs, so not very defining in itself, and different terminology was (is?) used by different governments. There are already some categories for people who were interned.Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete -- preferably after finding a replacement category for each. We have 4 articles - One for US actions; 3 British ones: 1 WWI explusion; 2 WWII internments. UK interned most enemy aliens, many on Isle of Man, though some of them were in fact Jewish refugees, hostile to the Nazis. Japanese Americans were similarly interned. I suspect there is scope for a whole tree here, but this is not a good start for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete I would have thought that the category would contain articles related to the designation or treatment of enemy aliens, rather than putting in people who were deemed so for a small portion of their lives. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:30, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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) 02:33, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|User latn}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|User latn-4}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|User latn-5}}

:* Propose deleting {{lc|User templates Latin script‎}}

:Nominator's rationale: Effectively the same as {{cl|User Latn}}, which has been deleted in 2007 and 2011 on the grounds of everyone on en.wiki should be familiar with Latin script - can we delete the templates in {{cl|User templates Latin script}} at the same time? Le Deluge (talk) 12:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. @Le Deluge, I wholly agree with the substance of your rationale, viz. that {{tq|everyone on en.wiki should be familiar with Latin script|q=y}}. Bluntly, anyone who isn't highly proficient in Latin script fails WP:CIR and has probably no business editing any part of en.wp.

:However, I created :Category:User latn-4 and :Category:User latn because they were listed at Special:WantedCategories, being populated by the templates. They are not just populated by the templates in {{cl|User templates Latin script}}, but also by {{tlx|User iso15924|latn|4}} (see e.g. User:RAJ4250). So it seems to me that the first step here is delete the templates in {{cl|User templates Latin script}} and to modify {{tl|User iso15924}} so that it ignores the "latn" parameter. Unless it's done in that order, the categories will still be populated and will end up back at Special:WantedCategories ... but if the templates are deleted/modified, then we can speedy-delete the nominated categories per WP:G4. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

:* Presumably the solution is to include the templates in this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

:* Template:User iso15924 already had code to ignore Latn (with a capital L) dating back to 2007, and thus the templates in {{cl|User templates Latin script}} (which are wrappers of Template:User iso15924 that pass the capital L) never actually populated this category, only direct calls to Template:User iso15924. Any way, I've added code to Template:User iso15924/sandbox to never populate the first three categories. :Category:User templates Latin script should not be deleted through CfD, although of course it will become deletable as empty if its contents are deleted at MfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - While I see no point in levels 0 and n, levels 1 to 4 make sense given that there are Wikipedians whose native language does not use Latin script - Russian, Thai, Chinese, Indian, etc. As such, these levels at least are useful. Grutness...wha? 02:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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 19:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Pre-Islamic Pakistan}}

:Nominator's rationale: Redundant new category given that there is already an extensive hierarchy already at {{cl|History of Pakistan by period}}, and for instance there's no Pre-Islamic Pakistan article. Le Deluge (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - there had been no "Pakistan" in pre-Islamic times.GreyShark (dibra) 12:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and WP:OVERLAPCAT. There is already plenty of content relative to e.g. ancient and prehistoric history of Pakistan and this news category does not fit well in this structure. The Indus Valley civilization for instance is one of the oldest known civilization and definitely belongs in Pakistan history categories, but current categories are sufficient. Place Clichy (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, articles are already in :Category:Prehistoric Pakistan or :Category:Ancient history of Pakistan which are well established categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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 19:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Video games featured on Angry Video Game Nerd}}

:Nominator's rationale: A game being reviewed is not WP:DEFINING for the game, perhaps it could be appropriate to turn this into a list but it definitely doesn't belong as a category. Le Deluge (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, not defining TarkusAB^talk/contrib 12:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep I have to disagree. As Angry Video Game Nerd is one of the most popular web series on the internet, accumulating views ranging from 3 to 7 million views for the first hundred or so episodes, I’d say being reviewed on the show is more than defining. Games such as Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde on NES are perhaps most known for being featured on the show. Terry g. bishop talk page 09:00, 25 November 2020 (EST)
• Delete per nom. AVGN uploads every few weeks, so being one of the 100+ games a certain YouTuber happens to talk about is not defining. The same would go for essentially every gaming channel. IceWelder [✉] 17:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete. Coverage in a major entertainment outlet is not really notable in a way that requires a cat, and neither is coverage in a source in and of itself more broadly. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I could understand an argument for this being a list. But it doesn't meet the defining characteristic to warrant a category. - X201 (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Listify, a good idea for a list, but not a category. (Oinkers42) (talk) 19:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, violates WP:NONDEF._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:06, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, no need to listify since it's already at List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes. Not at all defining for the games. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete What about :Category:X featured in documentary/review series Y for all X and Y? Too many Y's to count, even for a single X. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Keep 2 (duplicate !vote) As for the x for all y argument, the Angry Video Game Nerd would be the primary reason for page views for a particular article, so compiling a category for them in a streamline manner will be most convenient for not only viewers of the show, but those who want to see what source of outstanding notability the game has. Episodes are also not released every "few weeks" and are more so sporadic depending on the year. The List of Angry Video Game Nerd episodes, the list is far too wordy and lengthy, and does not specify particular games reviewed in compilation episodes like the Sega CD episode (S02E25), among others. If this is believed to cause inflation, even though it won’t be an issue, there are category’s such as :Living people that are also inundated. As retrogaming is much more niche and cultish than something mainstream like a film review or modern gaming review series, a category is much more fitting. If one was to list every feature a game or console has every had on any popular review show, then it would get excessive. However, as the Nerd is a staple among the retrogaming community, a category would seem the most effective. — Terry g. bishop talk page 09:54, 26 November 2020 (EST)

::Taking the Sega CD episode as your example. AVGN would not be "the primary reason for page views" to Night Trap, the primary reason (as it has always been) is because it was (incorrectly) the poster child for the 1993 Senate hearing into violent video games. Is AVGN "the primary reason for page views" to Sonic CD? Again, I'd say that was because it was the biggest selling title on the console and that fact that Sonic has a massive fanbase. As for the other games covered in that episode, seeing as the AVGN episode is dated 2007, what was the primary reason for the thousands and thousands of page views before 2007? - X201 (talk) 15:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete based on the same logic that was used for deleting similar categories for films features on Mystery Science Theater 3000 (see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_September_3#Category:Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_films], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_October_6#Category:Films_featured_in_Mystery_Science_Theater_3000_episodes] and others). The inclusion of the work on the later series was determined to be a non-defining trait. --Masem (t) 15:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete as non-defining. SportingFlyer T·C 15:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete :Category:Books reviewed by the New York Times? It's like WP:PERFCAT but once removed. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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 19:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Organizations based in the French West Indies}}

:Nominator's rationale: There is no other category structure base on the strict reading of the French West Indies, in this case the 3 overseas departements and collectivities of Guadeloupe, Martinique and Saint-Barthélémy (where did Saint-Martin go?). All children categories are already correctly located at :Category:Organizations based in the French Caribbean and :Category:Organizations based in Overseas France. Place Clichy (talk) 09:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and what appears to be a good faith misunderstanding of the French overseas political administration. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Support - I created this for reasons which I now forget. Oculi (talk) 17:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete :Category:Organizations based in the French Caribbean is aufficient: nothing to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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 19:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose Deleting/Listifying :Category:Recipients of the Order of the Equatorial Star

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD)

:When foreign leaders visit Gabon, or vice versa, the Order of the Equatorial Star is given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. Golda Meir, Lula and Ferdinand Marcos are not remotely defined by this award. (There is one person in this category who is Gabonese, Virginie Ambougou, but her article only mentions the award in passing and it's already well categorized.) There wasn't a list so I created one here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Background In the past, we've deleted similar categories for high ranking visitors here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

: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 19:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose Deleting :Category:Recipients of the Silver War Badge

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

:Over a million of these awards were given out according to the main article, Silver War Badge. The award was a combination wound decoration/campaign medal for British soldiers discharged after injury from WWI. Unfortunately, non-fatal injury in war is far too common to be defining. I placed the current category contents right here if anyone wants to start a list article but, given the potential size, I don't think that's viable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

• Background We previously deleted the category for recipients of the Purple Heart, the equivalent American award, in this discussion. - RevelationDirect (talk)
• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

----

:The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.