Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 31 August 2 >

August 1

[edit]

Category:Raions of the Luhansk People's Republic

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not defining for any former raions (districts) of Ukraine. Reliable sources do not say that these places are “in the Luhansk People’s Republic,” only that they are in a changeable state of “occupied by separatists” or since February 24, most commonly “occupied by Russian forces.” Similarly, the articles on these places define them typically as “was a raion in Luhansk Oblast of Ukraine,” and may or may not mention that “since 2014/2022 is controlled by the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic.”
As background, the LNR is a Russian-sponsored entity that is not recognized as a legitimate nor sovereign state, and it has no defined boundaries, only changing claims (for seven years its stated goals were reintegration with Ukraine to promote the Russia–Ukraine Minsk agreements, but with the Russian invasion they became, vaguely, to occupy the rest of the territory of Ukraine’s Luhansk oblast.
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 21#Category:Populated places in the Donetsk People's Republic  —Michael Z. 21:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point in time, "non-recognition" and "fluctuating borders" are outdated arguments, for the following reasons: a) The LPR and the DPR were unrecognized until last February, when Russia recognized them as independent states. Since then, they have been recognized by Syria and North Korea as well. This means that they now fit the definition of Partially recognised states, along with such states as Northern Cyprus, Taiwan (ROC), Kosovo and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Moreover, they are recognised by two partially recognized states, namely Abkhazia and South Ossetia. b) In early July, Ukraine lost control of the small part of Luhansk Oblast it still controlled. Now the totality of Luhansk Oblast is under the administration of the LPR, which defines its borders as being identical with the borders of the Luhansk Oblast of Ukraine. The front line is now within Donetsk Oblast and is slowly moving westwards, which means that the "fluctuating borders" argument can still be applied to the DPR, but no longer to the LPR. Besides, there are plans afoot to follow the Crimean scenario of 2014 and to make this area an integral part of Russia, probably retaining the name of the LPR. This question will most likely be settled in the autumn, one way or the other. Montenois (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2022 (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:Populated places in the Luhansk People's Republic

[edit]
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:Populated places in Luhansk Oblast. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:43, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is not defining for populated places. Reliable sources do not say that places are “in the Luhansk People’s Republic,” only that they are in a changeable state of “occupied by separatists” or since February 24, most commonly “occupied by Russian forces.” Similarly, the articles on these places define them typically as a “city in Luhansk Oblast of Ukraine,” and may or may not mention that “since 2014/2022 is controlled by the self-proclaimed Luhansk People’s Republic.”
As background, the LNR is a Russian-sponsored entity that is not recognized as a legitimate nor sovereign state, and it has no defined boundaries, only changing claims (for seven years its stated goals were reintegration with Ukraine to promote the Russia–Ukraine Minsk agreements, but with the Russian invasion they became, vaguely, to occupy the rest of the territory of Ukraine’s Luhansk oblast.
See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 21#Category:Populated places in the Donetsk People's Republic  —Michael Z. 19:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At this point in time, "non-recognition" and "fluctuating borders" are outdated arguments, for the following reasons: a) The LPR and the DPR were unrecognized until last February, when Russia recognized them as independent states. Since then, they have been recognized by Syria and North Korea as well. This means that they now fit the definition of Partially recognised states, along with such states as Northern Cyprus, Taiwan (ROC), Kosovo and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Moreover, they are recognised by two partially recognized states, namely Abkhazia and South Ossetia. b) In early July, Ukraine lost control of the small part of Luhansk Oblast it still controlled. Now the totality of Luhansk Oblast is under the administration of the LPR, which defines its borders as being identical with the borders of the Luhansk Oblast of Ukraine. The front line is now within Donetsk Oblast and is slowly moving westwards, which means that the "fluctuating borders" argument can still be applied to the DPR, but no longer to the LPR. Besides, there are plans afoot to follow the Crimean scenario of 2014 and to make this area an integral part of Russia, probably retaining the name of the LPR. This question will most likely be settled in the autumn, one way or the other. Montenois (talk) 07:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Super Ψ Dro 20:52, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support that merger -- International recognition is not the key issue here. In this case we probably have to use the pre-2014 boundary, as currently the boundary is in a state of flux, though LPR appears currently to hold the whole territory of the oblast. In general for categories like this we need to work on de facto boundaries, not de jure ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:07, 7 August 2022 (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:American Dragon: Jake Long

[edit]
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) 04:34, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There doesn't need to be an eponymous parent category for just a list of episodes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:30, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe there also used to be a video game article that was deleted by PROD. Now definitely WP:SMALLCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:30, 6 August 2022 (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:Digi-TV affiliates

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Digi-TV affiliates

Category:Basketball players at the 2022 NCAA Division I Men's Final Four

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Basketball players at the 2022 NCAA Division I Men's Final Four

Category:Greater León

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Greater León

People of Breton descent‎

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#People of Breton descent‎

Category:User pages with short description

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Category:User pages with short description

Category:Confucian thought

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10#Category:Confucian thought

Category:Video games notable for negative reception

[edit]
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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: there is already a list of such titles. Furthermore, it's very subjective MrMarmite (talk) 03:53, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hey there! I hope everyone has a nice day. I am the creator of this category; the reason that i created it was that i think it would be neat to put the contents of the List of video games notable for negative reception in a category. I have clearly laid out in the category's page that it has the exact same inclusion criteria that the page i linked above. As such, it's not a subjective listing of what someone might believe to be a bad game; it just contains the entries of that page. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:19, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, negative reception is subjective in any case, but at least a list allows providing objective details of how "negative" the reception was. A category does not have that nuance, it is either in or out. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "really-really-really notable for notable reception" is a totally made-up criterion, notability does not depend on whether reception is positive, neutral or negative. Besides the assessment of notability is (as SnowFire below points out too) a within-Wikipedia criterion. We categorize on objective real-life characteristics, not on within-Wikipedia characteristics. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Items in a list are not required to be notable, they are only required to be covered by reliable sources. Not every item in a list deserves its own article (an own article does require notability). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete, possibly speedy. What makes for a valid inclusion in article content is very different from what makes a valid category. "Is mentioned in one particular Wikipedia article" is a trivial fact. SnowFire (talk) 03:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
*The fact that the games are mentioned in that particular page means this: theese particular games are considered the worst by Wikipedia. As such, a category listing them all is not something unreasonable. I will mention again that the inclusion criteria for the category are the exaact same as the ones for the page; it's not something i made up myself. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is incorrect. Categories are way more restrictive, and citing use in a single Wikipedia article is unreasonable. When a category and inclusion in a Wikipedia list line up, it's always because of some non-controversial, verifiable fact behind them, like a film being in Category:2022 films and one of the sub-articles of 2022 in film. That is not the case here; there is no indisputable source of "notable for XYZ". Read Wikipedia:Categorization dos and don'ts and note both the "Don't categorize based on trivial characteristics." and "Don't add pages to non-neutral or unverifiable categories." entries. We already have a policy on not categorizing by a third party's list (WP:OCLIST, linked from the category basics page listed above), so categorizing based on an internal list is even less likely. Not every true fact is suitable for categories - we don't categorize by "box office bomb" or "sales disappointment" either even when there are voluminous sources to that effect. It stays as article prose. SnowFire (talk) 14:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If what i did was indeed bludgeoning, then i apologise. I was just trying to explain my opinion, however, other editors seem to have provided enough justification for the deletion of this category. Handmeanotherbagofthemchips (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2022 (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/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_1&oldid=1104143879"