Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 4

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 3 March 5 >

March 4

Category:Video games featuring female antagonists

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. – Fayenatic London 14:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Redundant and unnecessary. Adds nothing relevant to this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darksheets52 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 March 2016‎
  • Keep and purge. The last, failed nomination was way better substantiated. Indeed adds a relevant aspect, is both defining and clearly defined, though – from a number of games I picked – categorization isn't always clearly sourced. Propose adding some more content-related fields to the many peripheral fields in Template:Infobox video game, including |protagonist= and |antagonist=, possibly also |plot=. --PanchoS (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A video game featuring male or female antagonists is not a defining or relevant element especially with video games. The information can be written in the articles themselves. Not to mention, it is far TOO specific.--Darksheets52 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who says that and on which basis? In action films, apart from setting and theme, protagonist(s) and antagonist(s) are two of the most defining aspects, and the same seems to hold for action games. If these two aspects are not defining - what else is? In comparison, Staff, physics engine and game engine are clearly less relevant details regular people wouldn't know nor be interested in at all. And remember, we're writing a general audience encyclopedia, not one targeted to hardcore gamers. --PanchoS (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this category does not cover a video game's defining aspect. A protagonist or antagonist being female/male is just as irrelevant and undefining as does who wear eye-patches and similiar. The same cannot be said for staffs, physic and game engines. Also it is too specific considering the other options. Too much precision kills the precision. At the very least, this might be suitable for a list.--Darksheets52 (talk) 21:06, 5 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:Exile political parties of Bhutan

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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially a C2C request, but probably not straightforward enough for speedy. An exiled political party will pretty much always be a banned one, so I recommend bringing this in line with the other members of ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Banned political parties by country. The two articles currently in the category indicate that both parties are indeed banned, by the way. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --PanchoS (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is there any real evidence that the parties listed in this category exist, or ever existed, inside Bhutan - or are they just groups formed by some people in the ethnic-Nepali exile community? The article on the Bhutan Peoples' Party says it was "founded in West Bengal" i.e. outside Bhutan. One of the sources cited for the article on the Bhutan Communist Party (Marxist–Leninist–Maoist) states "The Bhutan Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) was born in the camps of Nepal, with the encouragement of Nepal's own, powerful Maoist movement". Also is there any reliable evidence that either of these "parties" were specifically banned? The activities of these groups probably fall under what the Bhutanese authorities would call "anti-national activities" - and the people calling themselves the CPB (MLM) appear to have engaged in a bombing campaign - so their activities would be illegal, but that is not quite the same thing as a specific ban on these parties as such. Chris Fynn (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, banned parties and parties in exile are not the same. Apart from the consistency issue, from what we know, it is however only proved that both parties are banned, while it remains disputable (possibly WP:POV) whether the parties are parties-in-exile without a veritable party basis in the country. So at second sight, my decision to support the rename is even clearer than it was before. --PanchoS (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I briefly considered whether it was relevant that neither party may have ever been active in the geopolitical boundaries of Bhutan, but I don't think it matters, given the overall category structure. We've gone with "parties in" when we could just as easily say "parties of". If these parties are concerned primarily or exclusively with Bhutanese politics, I don't think it matters where they're based. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that there are no other categories named this way. If we want to start distinguishing and separately categorizing banned and exiled political parties, perhaps this is the first step. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 11 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:Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II

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: split to the name proposed in the nomination (per lead article), and the additional Africa category proposed in discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II and move the (East) African content to parent Category:Theaters and campaigns of World War II. Combining Mediterranean, Middle East and East Africa in one category is pretty arbitrary. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's also a good solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with PanchoS. The East African theatre was quite distinct from the campaigns along the Mediterranian coast. In theory, the campaign across Algeria might be split from the Egypt/Libya theatre, but since they joined up at the end, I do not think would be a good idea. Again the campaign to conquer Syria might be split out, but since the British high command was in Cairo, this too would not do well. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 6 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:BPHC

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article of the category is Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani – Hyderabad Campus. Not eligible for speedy, as it was only recently renamed and without discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:13, 4 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:Rareware

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) 02:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Rare (company). Article was renamed after this RM. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
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:Five Towns, New York

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, given 10:5 support with a range of arguments on both sides. If this was a formal location e.g. city or county, I would have looked for a stronger consensus, as there certainly used to be a US pattern to include the state except for the most well-known cases; but as this is an informal grouping, and there are no other pages using the name as a title (as opposed to in the title, pace DuncanHill), the majority win this one. – Fayenatic London 14:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Main article of category is Five Towns. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
Alansohn Did I say a) that there was another article? No, I didn't. b) That Five Towns as an article doesn't need disambiguating? No, I didn't. So your question is based on assuming I said things that I didn't. FWIW, I think Five Towns as an article needs disambiguating. Almost nobody will have heard of this informal grouping which contains no towns, but many will have heard of Anna of the Five Towns, or be otherwise familiar with the usage for Stoke. The proposed category name, which is what I was commenting on above, is confusing and misleading. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 16 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:Real Monarchs SLC players

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 08:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Main article of the category is at Real Monarchs. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 4 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:People of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_23 in order to nominate sub-cats too. – Fayenatic London 19:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge (in either direction, I've tagged both categories), the two categories obviously have the same purpose. There aren't any other Eastern Orthodox Churches in the Levant than the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oriental Orthodoxy is not part of Eastern (/Greek) Orthodoxy, and (except for Syriacs) it is not Levantine either, so we should be a bit careful with merging too much at once. Some more difficulties to take into account: we also have Catholics in the Levant, and not all Levantine Christians self-identify as Arab. But the main question is of course: which group(s) are considered to be ethnoreligious descent group(s) according to reliable sources? As you pointed out, there is not too much information about that available. We have had a very long discussion about this more than a year ago, see here, but this neither led to consensus, nor did it result in a new or improved Wikipedia article. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge then purge -- of the three articles in the target, two are Melkite Catholics (not Orthodox at all). I am not clear what language is used for worship in the Antiochan church, but even if it is Greek, are the adherents using Greek language in other contexts? I suspect that this is being driven by the expatriate subcats of the target, which I have not examined. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. By the way, Greek is the language of worship, but having said that, there is no guarantee that descendants of Levantine-Orthodox people still visit a church of the same denomination as their ancestors. The articles hardly ever touch that subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 6 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:Bugatti Chiron

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: speedy close, an article (disambiguation page) was nominated here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think the two pages here are distinction. I believe the Bugatti Chiron (2016) should be "Bugatti Chiron". The other one has a 18/3 in the name. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:17, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_4&oldid=1090392206"