Eisspeedway

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 January 27

< January 26
January 28 >

January 27

Category:Africa Cup of Nations balls

Nominator's rationale: Just one list article. Merge in spirit of WP:C2F. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of beaches in Puerto Rico

Nominator's rationale: Just 2 list articles in this category. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National highways

Nominator's rationale: Categorisation by WP:SHAREDNAME that means different things in each of the different countries with member subcategories. I added Category:Highways by country to those that weren't already included via a parent, so it's now redundant. Paul_012 (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music generated games

Nominator's rationale: Raised by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_10#Category:Video_games_with_custom_soundtrack_support due to its unclear title. The long description is mostly WP:OR, and defines the topic as video games that can read CD inputs. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:09, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Music-generated games are games in which the gameplay is generatively determined in a meaningful way by musical input. This is accomplished, in music-generated video games, by associating in-game elements such as landscape or enemy attack formations with elements from the musical input via waveform analysis algorithms.

Musical input typically consists of a standard CD in Red Book audio format. With musical input in this format, the game software will load into the console's RAM and allow the removal of the game disc such that any musical CD of the player's choosing may be inserted and accessed during the game. This allows for essentially limitless gameplay variability and is intended to enhance replay value.

Other music-generated video games do not allow the player to select his own input, but instead use pre-determined musical input generatively. Such games allow the designers to employ any musical format of their choosing thereby enabling maximal compression and thus maximal pre-determined song library. Generative portions of such games typically derive from music visualization algorithms.

Although music-generated games are typically classified as music games, there is no requirement that a music-generated game must fall under this genre or even that the player must hear the music serving to determine gameplay. Furthermore, since gameplay determination is required, games which allow nothing more than a custom soundtrack do not fit the definition of a music-generated game.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Some of the members should be or already are included under Category:Rhythm games, but not all of them fall under the category. Generating gameplay content based on music input should probably be a defining aspect of these games, but other than a Steam Curator list[1] I'm only seeing Reddit and other forum posts that discuss them as a grouping. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BBC Television shows

Nominator's rationale: While the service is called "BBC Television", this naming convention is contra much of the other subcats, including things like Category:BBC television specials and Category:BBC television talk shows. Imo it makes sense to have this version be lowercase as well, as the container category contains television shows as the most-specific description over "shows", which happens to be under BBC Television. Utopes (talk / cont) 22:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Resolved missing person cases in Utah

Nominator's rationale: this just isolates cases, making it harder to navigate SMasonGarrison 13:33, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on AHI-3000's suggestion?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Africa Cup of Nations stadiums

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCVENUE and recent precedents. User:Namiba 21:31, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crones

Nominator's rationale: It is quite often impossible to split the hair, even the category statute admits this.
After that, merge Category:Hags into it. --Altenmann >talk 21:22, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pedostibes

Nominator's rationale: Pedostibes is a monotypic genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants

Nominator's rationale: This is borderline WP:PERFCAT as it is, splitting by season definitely makes this more of a WP:PERFCAT issue. If we have to break this down by show, we should not be splitting by season also, whichever specific season they may or may not have appeared in is not WP:DEFINING. --woodensuperman 09:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I notice that a lot of other drag TV shows have been subjected to the same inappropriate split just a couple of weeks ago, we do not do this for other reality TV shows, no need to do this here. Once this is resolved, we need to apply the same logic to other shows in the Category:Reality drag competition contestants tree. --woodensuperman 09:26, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as creator. A few points. It is quite common for references about the queens to not just refer to them as "RuPauls's Drag Race contestant Silky Nutmeg Ganache", but rather "RuPauls's Drag Race Season 11 contestant Silky Nutmeg Ganache". They represent diffusing* categories to a category with over 200 Queens in it and which allows for these subcats to become part of the cat for each season. The situation with RPDR is that unlike (say) "Who wants to be a millionaire?" or Survivor is that almost all queens in the shows, *as a result of the show* now meet notability criteria. (I honestly don't think we have any other tv show with that number of people who become notable *due* to the show.)Silky Nutmeg Ganache the remainder of her career is specifically identified by the characteristic of her category, as opposed to say the contestants on Celebrity Apprentice.*A few queens due to having to exit early were invited back for the next season.Naraht (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This is still no justification to split by season. We already sometimes make an exception to WP:PERFCAT for reality TV series contestants, as we are doing here (although, personally I don't see why, when a lot of these people are famous for more than the one TV series these days, and I'd ideally like to upmerge all of these to Category:Reality drag competition contestants), but splitting by season is a step too far as per WP:COPDEF, the specific season is not the WP:DEFINING characteristic. Splitting this further actually hinders navigation, as you would need to know which season someone was a contestant in order to navigate between the queens. Peversely, it would actually make more sense to break down the navbox {{RuPaul's Drag Race}} by season, rather than the categories, as you would be able to view all the contestants at once. Also, 200 entries in a category isn't catastrophic, when you consider Category:21st-century American male actors has over 6,000 entries. --woodensuperman 14:40, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    While a few are now famous for one or more additional shows, as far as I can tell more than 80% went from not being notable on the day they were cast to being notable after the show was broadcast. And, as I said, since the references refer to them specifically by season, that fulfills " A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to in describing the topic". If you would like to suggest that the template be redone, I'd suggest *either* the Wikiproject or the template talk page, the Wikiproject is a bit more active. And I think the reason that it hasn't been done is the small season/season overlap mentioned above.Naraht (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The season is not a defining characteristic. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think these categories are helpful and reasonable given the number of entries in Category:RuPaul's Drag Race contestants and the presence of categories for individual seasons (Category:RuPaul's Drag Race season 7, for example). Most contestants and episodes of the series are notable so some organization helps here. ---Another Believer (Talk) 21:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per request on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 17:35, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. This is also how contestants on similar reality shows are categorized and I do not see a reason to differentiate here.--User:Namiba 20:56, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    A note that it is the combination of number of contestants, the number that become notable (admittedly within the Drag community and Entertainment) *because* of the show and the season being viewed defining characteristic, that these were created. I haven't been able to find any shows really equivalent for example America's got talent or American Idol don't have the focused coverage that RPDR does.Naraht (talk) 16:49, 30 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The size of the category is not an issue, 200 entries is relatively small. Please see this from a Wikipedia-wide standpoint rather than a Wikipedia:WikiProject Drag Race standpoint. This is not a Drag Race wiki. --woodensuperman 11:06, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire

Speedy Cfd discussion
Nominator's rationale: There are, as far as I can see, only two dames due to Canada renouncing titles long ago. So no need to do so by order. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle from speedy Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:21, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serving Brothers of the Order of St John

Nominator's rationale: The current title only covers males and not females. In addition, this rank has relatively recently (about 2017, it would appear) been renamed from Serving Brother/Sister to Member. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rangpur

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 delete per G5 SilverLocust 💬 05:26, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category created today in good faith by new editor. The name Rangpur is ambiguous, so the existing category's title is correct, since all articles currently in the new category appear to be for the city in Bangladesh. The redirected category may need to be disambiguated for Category:Rangpur District and Category:Rangpur Division. Wikishovel (talk) 08:30, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and disambiguate per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:33, 27 January 2025 (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:Temples (LDS Church) by location

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary sub-level containing only two container subcategories and a list. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:51, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ballot measures

Nominator's rationale: Ballot measure has been a redirect to referendum since 2021. Merge and keep as a redirect per WP:OVERLAPCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is perfectly fine that the US category is called "ballot measures", per WP:ENGVAR. But the nominated category is not a US category, it is a global category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    This decision would impact a large number of articles that pertain to many legal systems around the world. I would suggest an approach more like (1) doing some research on the use of the terms in different places, (2) consider several naming schemes and list the pros and cons, (3) put together a proposal, and (4) post to a more widely trafficked venue like Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If you're open to such an approach, I am willing to help out, and we could do some preliminary work in user: or wikiproject: space. I think it would be valuable to come up with a solution that is compatible with the language used in various jurisdictions. But if not, I'm going to oppose any simple change that puts hundreds or thousands of articles into categories that are in direct contradiction to the formal status of the propositions they concern. - Pete Forsyth (talk) 05:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you misread my reply. I am totally fine to change the name of any countries' category from referendum to ballot measure if that is the term they use in that country. But this category is not for individual countries, it is a global category. And we shouldn't have a fork at global level because of WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • Of course a fork at the global level is a problem. As I said, I agree that this is an issue worth resolving; but it needs to be done with a more holistic view. My disagreement is with the present proposal, not with the notion that there's a problem in need of a solution, and not merely with the US-specific category tree. So I don't think there is any misunderstanding. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:45, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peteforsyth: if you agree with the fact that there is a problem but you keep keep opposing the proposal then please come up with an alternative proposal. Personally I don't see any alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My proposal is above, I'm surprised you don't acknowledge it. I am not confident I have a broad enough command of the various issues to come up with a comprehensive solution myself, nor do I think you do. The path I suggest is the one I've seen work time and again to move past thorny issues on the wiki. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a proposal, it is just delaying the only possible solution for unclear reasons. You do not provide any argument why this category should not be merged, the only thing you say is that your knowledge about the topic falls short. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virtual reality pioneers

Nominator's rationale: From Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_19#Virtual_reality_->_Extended_reality:

Please renominate "Virtual reality pioneers" separately. The term is generally only used in retrospect and I don't think it's controversial to say VR is still developing in a way that it's hard for us to say who is and isn't a pioneer from the present vantage point.
— User:Axem Titanium 23:45, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

–LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:40, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (keep). All the nominated categories can be kept without any deletions or renamings instead. 67.209.130.111 (talk) 05:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Experts on North Korea

Nominator's rationale: Most of the people in this category aren't described as experts. How are we defining who is an expert? There are a few politicians who I would not describe as experts in here (and neither does their article), but the only defining categorization here is those who study it as their discipline. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom. XFalcon2004x (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Experts on terrorism

Nominator's rationale: Experts is a weird thing to categorize by as well as a POV judgement. Who are we defining as an expert? Does Osama Bin Laden count as an "expert on terrorism"? There are a few politicians in here who made some legislation on terrorism, but I dispute that this makes them experts, and they are not described as such. The subcat of "terrorism theorists" should be merged into this, as it is basically doing the same thing. No, what these people are actually notable for is being scholars of the topic. All other categories like this (except two, which should also be changed) either use academics or scholars. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Scholars is the best option. --Fadesga (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_27