Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 21

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. bibliomaniac15 18:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who know where their towel is (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate joke/nonsense user category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not related to Wikipedia -- DaxServer (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep See also Phrases from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy#Knowing where one's towel is._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Delete (see my comment below). Tracking categories for user interests are an established thing and userboxes automatically adding the user to categories is also accepted. While this one is silly, it is not without merit. It serves the purpose of helping editors find other users who are interested in Douglas Adams articles. SpinningSpark 17:52, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It would not be hoopy to delete this. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• So many keep votes regarding a hype of decades ago, that must tell something about the age range of wikipedians? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think it says very much. I was not even born when the books in the series came out, yet I read them later and became a fan. I'm sure kids these days are enjoying Harry Potter despite it coming out in the late 90s - 2000s. You don't need to be as old as a piece of media to appreciate that media. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, a bit like saying Category:Cultural depictions of Ludwig van Beethoven is only of interest to people born before 1827. SpinningSpark 10:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, as the standard format for user collaboration categories. Or delete if there is no collaboration purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:FUN POLICE sums up what i think about that idea. While it's "technically" the correct thing to do, "knowing where your towel is" is as well known a reference as "engaging photon torpedoes". It's not particularly obscure as to be disruptive. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep valid userbox that isn't doing harm to anyone. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:53, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• With this nomination, the userbox will be kept. The discussion is just about the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case, changing to delete. No need to populate a category for this, even if it's a valid userbox. The category adds nothing to this encyclopedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:07, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This category has no usefulness to collaboration.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It falls under WP:USERCATYES, an established Wikipedia policy, as a user category that groups similar interests. As it is a fairly large subset of articles in the encyclopedia, it cannot be said to be "useless" to building the encyclopedia. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:USERCATYES assumes user collaboration. I doubt that this category ever contributed to user collaboration (but feel free to provide evidence that it did) and in that sense the category is useless. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete useless category. NavjotSR (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category has no usefulness to collaboration. --Just N. (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are over 300 Wikipedians using this category. SpinningSpark 14:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This paints a misleading picture. The true story is that there are 300 Wikipedians using User:UBX/Towel, and one person decided, without any discussion, that that userbox should populate a category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:22, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, that's a very recent addition to the userbox. Which means that most users are probably not aware they are in that category. Changing to delete on the basis of that. It's one thing for users to put themselves in a category. It's quite another for them to be silently put there by someone else. SpinningSpark 22:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep it's doing no harm. And, I completely agree with ZXCVBNM's logic why it should be kept. UPDATE: Changed due to the new information provided by * Pppery *. Spacini (talk) 16:37, 30 August 2021 (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.

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. bibliomaniac15 18:30, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who want to tax the rich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate advocacy user category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not related to Wikipedia -- DaxServer (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No real-world political ranting is tolerated here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 10:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no collaborative usefulness to this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete useless category. NavjotSR (talk) 17:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category has no usefulness to collaboration. --Just N. (talk) 22:15, 28 August 2021 (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.

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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cipla (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFining WP:SMALLCAT with no potential growth -- DaxServer (talk) 13:42, 21 August 2021 (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.

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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dr. Reddy's Laboratories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT with no potential growth and also WP:NONDEFining -- DaxServer (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2021 (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.

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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Marico (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFining WP:SMALLCAT -- DaxServer (talk) 13:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Week support I disagree that NONDEF is relevant in this discussion. The articles are about this cosmetic company's brands and subsidiaries. But we do not seem to have enough articles on them to turn this into a viable category. Dimadick (talk) 07:55, 23 August 2021 (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.

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 to Category:Sports fiction. bibliomaniac15 06:22, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sports in fiction to Category:Sports fiction

Nominator's rationale: The "in" is not necessary in this case, per sports film and all the subcategories. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:35, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sports fiction is more of a genre than a story element. Dimadick (talk) 07:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per both the above. Sports fiction is a sub-genre of both fiction and sport. The current title is ambiguous as it could be taken to mean the merest mention of a sport in a work of fiction, as when a character uses an expression like "kicked into touch" or "hit for six". No Great Shaker (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fiction about sports or Category:Sports fiction, per other subcats of Category:Works about sports - jc37 12:54, 12 September 2021 (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.

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. bibliomaniac15 18:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Darkness in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. Simply having "darkness" as a plot element is not defining, nor are the criteria for inclusion clear. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I disagree that plot elements are not defining. But the category scope is poorly defined. We define Darkness as the absence of visible light. Some of the works included in the category are either about shadows (including sentient ones) or revolve about the concept of stealth and hiding. (I checked their plot summaries). Dimadick (talk) 08:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Dimadick: But is it even possible to have fiction "about" darkness? It's a concept. Even films like Pitch Black would be classified as a monster movie, or a film about aliens, despite darkness being a key plot point, it's not about darkness. Something that is literally about the concept would probably have to be a scientific documentary and not in the scope of this category. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:25, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. While plots are defining, not every plot element is defining. A plot is usually about the interaction between the characters in the film. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or find another way to say it in my opinion. It's way too vague and could have multiple interpretations or could be read into works of fiction in a subjective way. Dan Carkner (talk) 15:43, 29 August 2021 (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.

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. bibliomaniac15 18:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:God complexes in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. A character having a god complex is not a defining aspect of a fictional work. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:38, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OR, most articles in the category do not explicitly mention a God complex and it is a far stretch to assume that they implictly discuss a God complex. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Awful title to begin with. There is only one god complex, not multiple ones. And the term has no clinical definition, as it has more to do with popular psychology than the real deal. Per the main article on the topic, patients who do exhibit this belief typically either suffer from narcissistic personality disorder ("Exaggerated feelings of self-importance, excessive craving for admiration, low levels of empathy") or superiority complex (acting "supercilious, haughty, and disdainful toward others" in order to "cope with painful feelings of inferiority"). Which both suggests that the term itself is non-defining, and that we are miscategorizing haughty characters as suffering from an undiagnosed mental disorder. Quite the definition of OR. (Personal note: I regularly see a psychiatrist to deal with my chronic depression and frequent suicidal thoughts. It has become a pet peeve for me to see amateurs "diagnosing" people based on popular misconceptions.) Dimadick (talk) 08:41, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with nom, and additionally, this can become a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT problem in who is considering something a god complex. -2pou (talk) 21:40, 27 August 2021 (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.

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. bibliomaniac15 06:23, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Origami in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. The members of the category almost entirely simply contain origami elements to their plot rather than being entirely about origami. (i.e. Heavy Rain is about a killer who leaves origami at the scene of the crime, but it is not a defining aspect of that work, being a murder mystery is). _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: There is no work of fiction that is "entirely" about something. Mystery fiction and its subgenres typically use the main mystery (murder or otherwise) to explore various settings, themes, or social topics. In One, Two, Buckle My Shoe (novel), the murders itself are not particularly important. The main theme is that the politically conservative murderer feels that his role in maintaining social stability in an entire country outweighs the way he eliminates everyone who either threatens him or disagrees with his political views (the end justifies the means used to justify a murder spree). In The Mysterious Affair at Styles, the murder itself or the motives of the murderers are less important compared to the exploration of a dysfunctional family, a marriage that has deteriorated due to the poor communication skills of the spouses, the life of World War I refugees in England, or the unrequited love of the narrator for two different women. In the Five Little Pigs, the murder is less important to understanding the psychology of the people involved in the case, and why the 5 surviving witnesses have entirely different perspectives and memories. If these books were entirely about murder, they would be rather boring. Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There is no work of fiction that is "entirely" about something. That's simply true. Nomoinator doesn't understand it. --Just N. (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Many articles do not even bother to mention origami at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and cleanup) per pretty much most of the subcats of Category:Fiction by topic. I do think inclusion criteria for all such cats needs to be defined clearly, but at present, that's mostly just a matter of cleanup. - jc37 13:21, 12 September 2021 (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.

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 Withdraw by nominator, I admit that this can actually be a defining aspect of a work. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Spontaneous human combustion in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. Recently created category about a non-defining topic. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:18, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: No indication that the topic is non-defining, Based on his/her other nominations, Zxcvbnm has little understanding that there is more than one defining element in each work. Dimadick (talk) 09:06, 23 August 2021 (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.

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Hundred (cricket) cricketers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This particular level of categorisation is not needed, the subcats for teams such as Category:Birmingham Phoenix cricketers should have parents Category:Players in English domestic cricket by team and Category:Players in English domestic women's cricket by team, as they are players for English domestic teams. We don't have this level of splitting the teams by tournament for any other English cricket tournament, and so it isn't needed for The Hundred. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:36, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose These teams are only going to play in the Hundred unlike other sides in English cricket who play in multiple competitions. And the same categorisation splitting occurs in other short-form (franchise) tournaments as per Category:Indian Premier League cricketers, Category:Caribbean Premier League cricketers, Category:Big Bash League cricketers, Category:Pakistan Super League cricketers, Category:Mzansi Super League cricketers. Ytfc23 (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• All of which are incorrect then. We don't need subcategories for franchise cricket tournaments. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Straightforward container category. SpinningSpark 18:02, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That the nominator dislikes categories about franchise cricket tournaments is not a reason to delete categories. Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a valid argument. Dimadick (talk) 09:09, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's not a Wikipedia:I just don't like it, it's that there are already valid categories without sub-categorising by tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment also, if kept, Category:The Hundred cricketers seems like a less redundant name. This isn't ambiguous with anything else called The Hundred or The 100. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess it's more of a clarification than a disambiguation. Without it, to someone not familiar with the format, it may sound like it's referring to a list (like top one hundred scoring batsmen for instance). SpinningSpark 11:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Don't see an issue with categorising competitions like this. Having said that, I've got no opposition to the move suggested by the nominator. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:24, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dimadick is right: Wikipedia:I just don't like it is not a valid argument. --Just N. (talk) 22:43, 28 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, it's not an I don't like it proposal. I have concerns that it's an WP:OVERCAT, so stop delibrately misrepresenting my nomination (as this is now the second time I've had to defend myself from this accusation). Joseph2302 (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2021 (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.