Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 3

February 3

Category:Former religious buildings and structures in Philadelphia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 11#Category:Former religious buildings and structures in Philadelphia

Category:San Marino work group

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: forward merge. WP:BARTENDER. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:WikiProject San Marino
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:22, 3 February 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:Liechtenstein work group

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: forward merge. WP:BARTENDER. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:24, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:WikiProject Liechtenstein.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 3 February 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:Nicholls Colonels baseball venues

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: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:02, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT. User:Namiba 21:09, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprised. Busy-body that just likes to destroy others work. Some build, Nambia destroys. I remember I once proposed a merge on your work and you got pretty offended and angry. Maybe you should take that lesson into account since you continually destroy others work. Don't be hypocritical. Spatms (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Spatms, try not to take other editors actions as a personal attack on your editing. You should also assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. The standards for categories are consistent and editors like myself are just enforcing them. Small, narrow categories such as these do not help the project.--User:Namiba 16:27, 4 February 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:Gameplay of specific video games

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:14, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I recognize that this category is currently lacking in valid articles, but I just want to bring up this point for discussion. As stated by QuicoleJR:
  • "Gameplay of X simply does not work as a standalone article, for the same reason that we couldn't make a plot of X article for a book or film. The gameplay essentially is the game..."

As is the consensus at WP:VGSCOPE, this is an inappropriate way to construct a video game article. When you summarize reliable sources thaat discuss the reception, development, and summary of a video game's gameplay, it belongs at the main video game or series article. Not as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Shooterwalker (talk) 20:06, 3 February 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:Religious cults

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no clear critera for what counts as a "cult", and it is often used for a religion that the speaker dislikes. I therefore don't think this category is useful as it is poorly defined. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge per nom and it is also a borderline case of WP:G4, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_January_17#Category:Cults. I would not mind converting it to a soft redirect to Category:New religious movements though. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't love the idea of a redirect to Category:New religious movements. That category includes plenty of movements that are nothing like cults. See New religious movement#Definitions and terminology for a thoughtful discussion of the complexities of categorizing new religious movements. There's fairly minor overlap between them and cults. Davemc0 (talk) 04:30, 6 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not purely equivalent terms, but they have been historically conflated in the past (because NRM is basically a euphemism for the sociological definition of cult), and the original cults category that I CfDed was like 60% NRMs, 30% random other groups some of which weren't even called cults, and 10% random stuff (some serial killers, some random blps, some random organizations that i had no clue why they were even in there). And for some reason we had the NRM category as a subcategory of cults, and the definition we were claiming to use for the cult category (but weren't actually using) was very close to the NRM definition.
    The only definition that isn't duplicative of NRM is basically "harmful group", which we can't decide on our own, and if we're going to include based on people calling it that this will instead be "groups called cults by anyone at any time" and also runs into the terrorist issue where it is basically subjective even if someone that isn't us saying it. And also, being "harmful" is for our purposes not a defining trait. We don't categorize by domestic abusers. It runs into the further problem of everyone has a different definition of cult so how do we know they mean the harmful definition? Are we going to include ritual practice cults like roman mystery religion? Why not, if people call them that? I honestly think we probably should have just deleted it instead of making it a disamb category because long term this will cause more problems than it is worth. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:22, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per last AfD. This is somehow even less useful than "cult" proper, and again, how are we defining this PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The merge of the cults category itself was flat out wrong and therefore I cannot support merging this either. There are many organizations that are deemed cults by governments as well as very reliable sources. It is not a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT as claimed by others. The discussion got very little participation for such a massive topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:19, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    There are many groups deemed terrorist groups by governments and yet we have neither the category terrorists nor terrorist groups. Terrorism also has a far clearer definition. Could we make a category called Evil people and put Hitler in it? Most reliable sources agree he is evil - but “evil” is obviously an unworkable classification for our purposes even if RS agree on it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedent. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category fails to define its scope. What counts as a "religious cult"? Dimadick (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ButlerBlog (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Per the article cited by the only person opposed to deletion, calling a group a cult can actually be illegal, such as in Canada. WP should not be in the business of deciding what groups are cults. Davemc0 (talk) 04:01, 6 February 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:Films with fictional attacks on public transport

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:16, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary category, as most films are fictional. Not a defining characteristic regardless, "films with attacks on public transport". soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 16:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Saw this cat being added to articles and thought surely this is WP:NONDEFINING. I came here to nominate it myself. I am glad to see someone else thought the same. Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the objection is that most films are fictional, please note that the "fictional" aspect was included to not combine quai-documentary films (for example, such as those about 9/11) with pure fiction films.
    Another point in favor of not deleting the Category it is certainly possible to use this definition to identify such films: please look at the page now. It is like "Films with fictional American presidents".
    Thank you for your consideration. Lumaag (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, public transport is not an essential element of the plot of these films. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Seems rather unnecessary to me as well, and besides way too many films feature something along those lines. Everything from superhero fillms such as Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness to almost every Godzilla and kaiju movie as transport being destroyed is a common motif of that genre. Eiga-Kevin2 (talk) 18:52, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a defining characteristic. LibStar (talk) 03:24, 4 February 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:Kiss (band) personnel

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:20, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCASSOC. Not clear what the role of the individuals are, and seems to include various roles such as producers and songwriters, which would not be WP:DEFINING for this band. --woodensuperman 13:16, 3 February 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:Lebanese orthopedic surgeons

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: merge to Category:Lebanese surgeons and Category:Orthopedic surgeons. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:52, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry LibStar (talk) 04:42, 3 February 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:Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598)

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:52, 10 February 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:Law of Middle East and North Africa

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 20#Category:Law of Middle East and North Africa

Category:Pan American Games sports navigational boxes

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: merge (non-admin closure). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:51, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same scope. Overlapping categories. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support, per nom. - Epluribusunumyall (talk) 01:27, 3 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_February_3&oldid=1276687453"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 3, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.