Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 9

March 9

Category:Nintendo Switch launch titles

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Nintendo Switch launch titles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION, this has never been done before for any other video game system, and this move is supported by most WP:VG members, who have already removed it from the affected articles. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is routine overcategorization. The members are sufficiently categorized as games for that platform and, if applicable, exclusives for that platform. Especially now with digital launches, the distinction of "launch title" is not necessarily defining. czar 20:28, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Heads up, but the user Americanfreedom (talk · contribs) has also created Category:Launch titles by platform, Category:PlayStation 4 launch titles, Category:Wii U launch titles, and Category:Wii launch titles in the mean time, which should also be included in this nomination. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:40, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. Such categories are completely redundant seeing as each game's release date is already included in their own articles. -- Millionsandbillions (talk) 21:01, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all after some reading of WP:OVERCAT Dissident (talk · contribs) appears to be correct. Mea culpa.Americanfreedom (talk) 21:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Americanfreedom, thanks—would you please revert your recent edits related to these categories? Otherwise it creates more work for someone else czar 01:23, 10 March 2017 (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:Collapsed buildings

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. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Collapsed buildings to Category:Collapsed buildings and structures

Nominator's rationale: This is to include non-building collapses (such as eroded natural arches), also per wider scope of parent Category:Former buildings and structures. If anyone feels this will pass as speedy, feel free to submit. Brandmeister^talk 15:04, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be better to create Category:Collapsed buildings and structures and then put Category:Collapsed buildings under it? DexDor^(talk) 21:51, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be WP:OVERLAP, I think, since both would include buildings. Brandmeister^talk 08:15, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support except that it should not include natural features e.g. natural arches. The category should be limited to man-made 'things'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 11:36, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons of consistency. We don't have a separate tree for Buildings. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support For consistency reasons. The category tree is for "buildings and structures". Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2017 (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:Toll bridges and roads

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 21:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Toll bridges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Toll roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We don't need a category for every place that charges a toll. Not a defining characteristic, and Wikipedia is not a travel guide.

Note: Nominator is IP 2602:302:d1a2:c740:1c81:b5d1:f7c8:5468. DexDor^(talk) 21:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - these categories are at the top of a large tree of categories for toll bridges/roads (e.g. Category:Toll roads by country) and I'm not convinced that it's not a defining characteristic in many/most cases. DexDor^(talk) 21:58, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep − it is a defining characteristic, IMO. Oculi (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

so the bridges in Category:Former toll bridges fundamentally changed their character along the way? Probably each change deserves its own article like Dagen H and H-dagurinn, which cover when Sweden and Iceland, respectively, changed which side of the road they drove on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- In my country (England) this is an unusual (and hence notable) characteristic today. In a former period turnpike roads were more common and would belong in a category for such roads. These are appropriate as a container category (or mainly such). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whether a bridge or road charges toll is not a defining characteristic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep well populated categories with many subcategories that are not being deleted. Certainly a defining characteristic of the road during the time it was a toll road, regardless of changes over time. Hmains (talk) 03:11, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, it varies by country whether this is a defining characteristic or not. For example in France all highways are toll roads so there it is useless to categorize toll roads separately, but in other countries toll roads are rare. There is no easy solution for this problem, a straight delete goes too far. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I support keep based on my Mexican experience, where toll roads also tend to be built to a higher standard than non-toll roads. Raymie (t • c) 00:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It is a defining characteristic and has many subcategories for toll roads/bridges by country. Dough4872 15:44, 26 March 2017 (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.