Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 4

February 4

Category:Elements of fiction

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:Fictional elements. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The new name I'm moving to has previously been deleted. However this category only is for things that are fictional and there are also 5 subcategories that already use "Fictional elements" instead, so why use this name instead? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:02, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are there sources, per Jc37's request?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:42, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a literature academic, both versions seem basically fine. Of the two, I prefer "Fictional elements" -- "elements of fiction" leads me to expect items like "narrative POV", "setting", "characters", etc, that is, the various elements that make up a given work of fiction. Whereas this category appears for be for "Fictional stuff". As an encyclopedic synonym for "stuff", I can't think of anything better than "elements". So, "Fictional elements" works. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:20, 5 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:Olivetti S.p.A.

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:Olivetti. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:19, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: like the main article Olivetti InterComMan (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Add a disambiguator?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:41, 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:Americanized surnames

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 14#Category:Americanized surnames

Category:Terrorism theorists

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:22, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I forgot to bundle this with the last nom. There is no clear difference between scholars and theorists as used here. Also just an odd title. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:37, 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:Elsie Singmaster

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:Books by Elsie Singmaster. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough material for an eponymous category: only one article besides the main article. Pichpich (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I started the category, initially thinking it might include more entries than I ended up finding eligible for it. So I have no objection to its deletion. Keystone18 (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Books by Elsie Singmaster, remove Elsie Singmaster from the category and add a link back via {{catmain}}. Not enough entries for an eponymous category, but Category:Works by creator has no such restriction. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 09:18, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ok with that suggestion too. Pichpich (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Keystone18: Is this an acceptable course of action? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sounds very good. Thanks. Keystone18 (talk) 21:36, 14 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.

Early modern symbols and flags

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) 16:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated 1-3 article categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 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:Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)

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). ~/Bunnypranav:<ping> 07:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The acronym should not be in the category name – Muboshgu (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm good with that changing, sorry for the syntax/setup issues. Go for it. -- Very Polite Person (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 21:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support. RodRabelo7 (talk) 13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom --Lenticel (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:10, 7 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.


Template:Titan-stub

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) 16:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New stub template of unclear necessity. When I first found this it was trying to "file" its entries into a redlinked Category:Titan stubs that doesn't exist to have articles filed in it -- but the minimum size bar for the creation of a stub category is 60 articles, while this template is only in use on one article and there aren't 59 other Titan-related stubs to add it to.
And while stub templates aren't subjected to the same 60-article minimum as stub categories are, a stub template does still have to file its entries somewhere -- so my only option was to replace the redlink with Category:Saturn stubs, but the already existing {{Saturn-stub}} template already contains language indicating that it is for "the planet Saturn, its moons, their geology or related features" as it is, meaning that it's already covering Titan-related stuff and filing it in exactly the same place anyway. So it's just not at all clear that we would need a separate template here for just one page. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A few articles are Titan stubs, like some of its lakes. The category needs more. But delete it anyway, because it's useless. Gnu779 ( talk) 12:35, 5 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:Russian sculptors by federal subject

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) 16:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers that aren't unhelpful for navigation. These only contain folks from Dagestan. SMasonGarrison 13:36, 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:Women dictators

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) 16:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no super-category because of a previous deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 22#Category:Dictators. This category suffers from the same fault: being an indeterminate category where subjective judgements are made regarding inclusion. This does not strike me as a verifiable, neutral or defining category as described at Wikipedia:Categorization#Categorizing articles. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:06, 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:Lithuanian guerrillas killed in action

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) 16:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Lithuanian guerrillas killed in action to Category:Lithuanian guerrillas
Nominator's rationale: reparent and rename. This redudant category layer is missing the parent category of Category:Lithuanian guerrillas SMasonGarrison 05:12, 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:Ante-Nicene Christian martyrs

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: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 06:58, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per parent Category:Ancient Christian saints and Category:Ancient Christians. Also, the category tree contains articles well beyond the First Council of Nicaea. For example Abda and Abdisho died in 376. After the rename, Category:5th-century Christian martyrs can be added as a subcategory too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: isn't there a distinct purpose in a category for Christians martyred prior to the widespread adoption of Christianity in the Roman Empire? I realize that the date for this is a bit fuzzy, but the Council of Nicaea seems as reasonable a date as any. Those martyred afterward would seem to have been martyred for different reasons—perhaps a case could be made for including those martyred by Romans who had yet to convert, though Abda and Abdisho apparently were martyred for a different reason and beyond Roman borders, so they and some others could probably be removed from this category.
Perhaps the solution could be a category titled "Ancient Christian martyrs" with a subcategory for Ante-Nicene martyrs, and which would separately include late Roman (or other) martyrs such as Abda and Abdisho. That would simply be a revision to the "martyr tree", so to speak. I note that I come at this from a non-Christian perspective; I am not particularly fond of the concept of martyrdom, but it is a valid topic in religious history, and it seems to make sense to distinguish between those who were martyred due to anti-Christian persecution by Romans and those martyred post-persecution elsewhere (*wonders if there are Post-Nicene pagan martyrs*). If this category is not preserved, then that distinction would be lost, and probably not to the benefit of the reader. P Aculeius (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are enough articles just mentioning a death in the 4th century without specifying whether it was before or after 325, so the distinction isn't clear anyway. Besides Christianity became an accepted religion quite a few years before Nicaea. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      Before the reign of Constantine (312–337) Christianity was widely persecuted, so there would have been many Christians martyred within the Roman empire. Though various dates from 311 (edict of Serdica) to 337 (death, and alleged deathbed conversion of Constantine, who may or may not have adopted Christianity informally as early as 312) could be used, the council of Nicaea, which he convened in 325, is a significant date in establishing a degree of uniformity for Christian worship, and probably did more to promote its acceptance than dubious stories about the Battle of the Milvian Bridge. After this it would be rare for Christians to be martyred within the Roman Empire, though of course they could be anywhere else that Christianity wasn't yet tolerated or adopted, and would continue to be for centuries. So it makes good sense to distinguish martyrs before 325 and after—or at least martyrs due to Roman persecution, which probably did not end all at once as soon as some decree was issued at Rome, though it probably had by the end of Constantine's reign—from later martyrs elsewhere. P Aculeius (talk) 17:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • So what do you suggest we do with Category:4th-century Christian martyrs with its many articles not specifying a year or specifying a year after 325? Should this subcategory be purged? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        Since some of the contents of "4th-century Christian martyrs" are ante-Nicene, it can remain as a subcategory, the same as "Ford" could remain under "20th-century automobile manufacturers" even though it continues in business in the 21st century. Subcategories will often be partial matches for multiple parent categories. P Aculeius (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
        • But then the difference with "Ancient" as proposed is only the 5th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:18, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
          Assuming that the 5th century topic includes the entire century, then "Ancient Christian martyrs" would cover a span of about 450 years—about 275 before Nicaea, 175 after. That doesn't seem unreasonable as a division of the span, since each group would tend to share certain characteristics—most ante-Nicene martyrs would have been martyred in the Roman Empire either as part of or inspired by official persecutions; post-Nicaea most Christian martyrs would have been martyred elsewhere or for other reasons. P Aculeius (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of productive discussion (good!); what does that mean for this category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm thinking we should keep this category as-is, a subcategory of Christian martyrs, which is already synonymous with the suggested "Ancient Christian martyrs", although I have no objection to substituting that title for the parent category. "Ante-Nicene Christian martyrs" seems like a valid distinction within the parent category, whatever that's called, since the reasons and occasions for martyrdom post-Nicaea make those persons distinguishable. P Aculeius (talk) 14:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on P Aculeius's most recent comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:53, 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:National highways

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 14#Category:National highways

Category:Virtual reality pioneers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 14#Category:Virtual reality pioneers

Category:Bombycillidae

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) 16:59, 13 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bombycillidae is a monogeneric family. Nurg (talk) 01:32, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom The main article is Waxwing. It notes that there is a dispute between including a number of related taxa in the family, or leaving this as the only genus in the family. The former seems to be a minority view. Dimadick (talk) 17:07, 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:Music generated 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: no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:21, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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[2] 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Paul_012's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:11, 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:Former churches by populated place

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: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 articles. Not useful for navigation. Merge per WP:NARROW. –Aidan721 (talk) 00:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE. Many of these categories are useful, even if there is only one entry. Isoceles-sai (talk) 16:09, 7 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_4&oldid=1276687103"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 4, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.