Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 28: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:25, 6 January 2010 editBrownHairedGirl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers2,942,733 edits →Category:New Zealand musical acts that have charted internationally: close debate. The result was: Listify and Delete← Previous edit Revision as of 16:33, 6 January 2010 edit undoAlansohn (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers504,989 edits →Video games by designer: Keep AllNext edit →
Line 574: Line 574:
:::* No disrespect to your skills, Mike, and thanks for declaring the COI, but I'm not persuaded by that comparison. I don't know much about creating video games (it's more than ten years since I knew anyone in the business), but I do know that they are a team effort amongst a lot of people: there is simply too much code for one person to do the lot any more. So the designer is one cog in a machine (maybe a big cog, I dunno) rather than the sole creator as with books or paintings. I notice that many of the other types of games in these categories are board games or role-playing games, which are works capable of being developed entirely by one person. So it seems to me that video-game designers are a different breed to other game designers, in that they cannot be the only-begetters of the games.--] <small>] • (])</small> 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) :::* No disrespect to your skills, Mike, and thanks for declaring the COI, but I'm not persuaded by that comparison. I don't know much about creating video games (it's more than ten years since I knew anyone in the business), but I do know that they are a team effort amongst a lot of people: there is simply too much code for one person to do the lot any more. So the designer is one cog in a machine (maybe a big cog, I dunno) rather than the sole creator as with books or paintings. I notice that many of the other types of games in these categories are board games or role-playing games, which are works capable of being developed entirely by one person. So it seems to me that video-game designers are a different breed to other game designers, in that they cannot be the only-begetters of the games.--] <small>] • (])</small> 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
::::*No disrespect inferred, BHG. I grant it can be trickier with video games, but sometimes it's very clear. Cliff Johnson, Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux, Ron Gilbert, and American McGee are visionaries, and certainly merit their own categories (under the presumption that board game designers do). I don't know about Dave Grossman and Tim Schaefer, though. I think the principle should be that categories should only give credit where credit is due, and in the case of lead designers like McGee and Gilbert, it is due. Just my opinion, though; your mileage may vary.--] (]) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC) ::::*No disrespect inferred, BHG. I grant it can be trickier with video games, but sometimes it's very clear. Cliff Johnson, Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux, Ron Gilbert, and American McGee are visionaries, and certainly merit their own categories (under the presumption that board game designers do). I don't know about Dave Grossman and Tim Schaefer, though. I think the principle should be that categories should only give credit where credit is due, and in the case of lead designers like McGee and Gilbert, it is due. Just my opinion, though; your mileage may vary.--] (]) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
*'''Keep All''' These are notable game designers who have created multiple notable games. This defining characteristic is one that should be made available for navigation purposes in addition to any existing list. The game designer is no less defining than the director of a film. It blows mind that an experienced admin can use "because a list of games in the articles on each designer will do the job just fine" as an excuse for deletion. We might as well just jettison the entire category system as the list "will do the job just fine" is a perfect argument to delete every category that exists. ] (]) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:33, 6 January 2010

< December 27 December 29 >

December 28

Category:Medieval revival architectural styles

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:Revival architectural styles. Good Ol’factory 02:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Medieval revival architectural styles - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is no Medieval revival architecture article, and the sole parent, Category:Revival architectural styles, can directly parent its contents without loss of information. - choster (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Arača

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. Good Ol’factory 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Arača - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Category contains only one image which already adequately categorised, and the only other item I can see which could be added to it is the head article Arača. It is clearly a significant ruin in Serbia, but significance does not require a category unless there are a lot of related articles to organise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Afrikaans South Africans

Suggest merging Category:Afrikaans South Africans to Category:Afrikaner people
Nominator's rationale: listed are white South Africans whose first language is Afrikaans - such people are Afrikaners Mayumashu (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Anahí concert tours

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. Good Ol’factory 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Anahí concert tours - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. It seems that Anahí has done only one tour, and it is already interlinked with the other articles about her through {{Anahí}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Intra-Palestinian violence

Category:Intra-Palestinian violence - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Whilst there have been several episodes of conflict between Palestinian groups, there is no head article Intra-Palestinian violence; the closest seems to be Palestinian factional violence, which is a redirect to Fatah–Hamas conflict, itself the head article of Category:Fatah–Hamas conflict.
This category seems to be a strange collection of articles whose purpose I cannot quite fathom. It seems to me that the existing categories Category:Intifada and Category:Fatah–Hamas conflict cover most (though not all) of the scope of this one. This one was created in September as Category:Intra-Palestinian Violence and speedily-renamed in October, but it doesn't seem have found a place in the category system (it was uncategorised when I found it). I will notify WP:PALESTINE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • delete; a bit of a neologism, isn't it? I would think we need an article before we start to categorize in this way. Good Ol’factory 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep An appropriate category to group articles for navigation purposes by their defining characteristic. There is no requirement for a parent article to exist, nor is the lack of such justification for deletion. As to the neologism claim, again misused as a justification for deletion, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is directly quoted as calling "for the immediate cessation of all intra-Palestinian violence" see here in an official UN statement. The Sydney Morning Herald stated that "Mr Gambari said 49 of the Palestinian deaths and 259 of the injured had been due to Israeli-Palestinian violence. The rest were casualties of intra-Palestinian violence." see here. The Jerusalem Post back in 2002 stated that "PA officials said yesterday they are angry at Hamas for trying to disrupt the cease-fire and provoke intra-Palestinian violence, despite an understanding between the PA and Hamas" in this source. This is a widely-used term that deserves to be grouped by the category system, especially as no policy justifications for deletion have been offered. Alansohn (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Lasker Award recipients

Category:Lasker Award recipients - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#Award_winners: except for a very few particularly notable awards, recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category. A detailed list already exists at Lasker Award.
Note that I found this category in Misplaced Pages:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, and added it to Category:Award winners, but if kept it needs better categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
I created the category and it's fine with me to delete it. But if I recall, there may be 3 separate lists for 3 separate subcategories of Lasker awards, each in a separate article (separate WP page). I noticed the 3 lists a bit after creating the category, and consequently somewhat regretted creating the category. Perhaps the existence of those lists needs to be made more clear and prominent in the relevant Lasker article(s) -- the lists' existence apparently wasn't evident to me when I first looked at the article(s) -- but at this point I can't remember well enough to make a clear recommendation. Thank you for cleaning this up. Health Researcher (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Isidor Gordon Gottschalk Ascher

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. Good Ol’factory 02:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Isidor Gordon Gottschalk Ascher - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. This appears to be an article in category space, but the article Isidor Gordon Gottschalk Ascher already exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Unitary authorities of Scotland

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:Council areas of Scotland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Unitary authorities of Scotland to Category:Council areas of Scotland
Nominator's rationale: While they probably mean the same, the term "council areas of Scotland" appears to be prevelantly used in Misplaced Pages, but not the term "unitary authorities of Scotland". Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Islands named after days in the liturgical calendar

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. — ξ 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Islands named after days in the liturgical calendar - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES ... or rename to Category:Islands with the letter A in their name, which is equally trivial but at least offers some scope for expansion. It may be relevant that the creation of this category is the only contribution of User:Arbitrary Name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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.

Architecture by U.S. state

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 all. Good Ol’factory 02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Propose renaming
These categories are parented by "architecture," not "buildings and structures" categories— Category:Gothic Revival architecture in the United States, Category:Architecture in Alabama, et al. The "buildings" format is exclusive to these U.S. state categories, but I see no reason to exclude articles like City Hall Historic District (Rochester, New York) or Batavia Cemetery from being categorized together with them.- choster (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Will do. There is some inconsistency in categorization schemes, especially with churches, so I'll have to read up on the generation process if you can send me a link.- choster (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Lake George

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. — ξ 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Lake George to Category:Lake George (Uganda)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform with head article Lake George (Uganda), and avoid confusion with other things called Lake George. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Levitt Hagg

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 both. Good Ol’factory 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Levitt Hagg - Template:Lc1
Category:Hooton Levitt - Template:Lc1 (added by Occuli (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC))
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL as small with no potential for growth. Eponymous category for the abandoned village of Levitt Hagg near Doncaster in England. Contains only 2 articles, and appears to have little or no scope for expansion. If kept, it needs parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Recipients of the Neustadt International Prize of Literature

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Neustadt International Prize of Literature to Category:Recipients of the Neustadt International Prize for Literature
Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform with head article Neustadt International Prize for Literature. I have taken on good faith the claim in the head article that the Neustadt "is widely considered to be the most prestigious international literary prize after the Nobel Prize in Literature", but have not sought to verify this beyond the ref cited, which is a a local newspaper in New Zealand (possibly not the best choice of publication for ranking of the significance of literary prizes). If this assertion doesn't stand up, then the category should be deleted per WP:OC#Award_winners; there is already an apparently complete list at Neustadt International Prize for Literature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol

Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can find no other example of a category for TV programmes by location of shooting, but I am not very familiar with the TV categories, so please correct me if I am wrong. I also think that we do not usually categorise film and TV together, so the joint category seems inappropriate.
However, we do have a Category:Films by city of shooting location, so it may be appropriate to create a new Category:Films shot in Bristol for the two films in this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:United States Cyber Command Components

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. Good Ol’factory 02:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:United States Cyber Command Components to Category:United States Cyber Command
Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform with head article United States Cyber Command, and because none of the other sub-categories of Category:Commands of the United States armed forces use the word "components". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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.

Pop songs by decade

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. Good Ol’factory 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:1960s pop songs - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure I see the need for this intersection of the categories 1960s songs and Pop songs. Songs are typically categorized already by year and by artist, while the songs by artist category is a child to a by country, by genre category. It is excessively broad, and the recommended categorization under WP:SONGS#Categories seems sufficient. Also nominating the other pops songs by decade categories. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I think perhaps this editor misunderstands that what is at issue here is not categorization as a pop song, but categorization as a song from a particular decade. Some definitions of "pop" would be any song accepted by a mass audience, and/or appearing on, say, the Billboard Hot 100, Cashbox Top Pop Songs or ARC Top 40 charts. Other definitions of pop are more tied to artist, instrumentation, arrangement, and, as you say, POV. Presumably "You Keep Me Hangin' On", for example, is reasonably listed as both a 1960s pop song and a 1980s pop song for the versions by The Supremes and Kim Wilde, both of whom clearly intended to please a mass audience with a familiar if trendy sound. Would it also be categorized as a 1970s pop song for the version by Vanilla Fudge?? I venture to guess Vanilla Fudge would consider themselves to have made a rock record out of a pop song — and then had a pop hit with it. Perhaps what the category ought to be called is 19XX pop hits, as it seems the threshold for article inclusion is notability and the notability of nearly any song is whether or not it became popular; just because a song was on a popular album wouldn't automatically make it worthy of an article here, and so it wouldn't be in a pop song category unless it were a hit song. Perhaps that's the crux of the problem?
If I'm mistaken and you aren't focusing on the pop aspect alone, then respectfully, I don't understand how you see decade as any more subjective than to link a song to a year or an artist; it's less so, although of course it doesn't preclude its being viewed in those ways and on its own terms as well. To say that a song can be categorized (by the many different ways a song can be categorized, in life as at Misplaced Pages) does not mean it is being pidgeonholed, and does not preclude categorization in other ways as well, it merely means it can be viewed and searched among other work of its era, rather than merely of its calendar year. Though it's an interesting question where the parameters of "pop songs" lie, and whether they share overlapping territory with other genres (as I and I suspect Richhoncho believe) or are inherently one thing or another (try that from the standpoint of disco, or hip hop—while some may cover other songs, how often can a song from those genres be covered in another genre and not directly evoke its original genre?), that isn't the point of this category or this nomination. Abrazame (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, you are correct insomuch that my object is to the word "pop" song. In your well-measured and erudite post you actually confirmed what I was saying, because you referred to different recordings of a song, rather than the song itself. It is the same aurguments used for the deletion of the category Country songs by songwriter. I would assume all songs at WP are pop/popular, otherwise there wouldn't be an article about them in the first place! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep While elsewhere I acknowledge that linking can become excessive, this seems like a prime example where, the more that time passes, the less anybody remembers that the song was from 1967—or even 2007—and simply remembers it as of the decade. And while for other reasons I can't stand retrospective collections, as they often seem to recycle the same 72 overplayed songs from each decade, a sort of rewriting of musical history, when there are many more reasons to remind people of gems, even big hits, that are for one reason or another overlooked, the point noted by BrownHairedGirl is undeniable. If part of the point of a category is to allow meaningful searches therein, it seems that browsing a decade within a genre (Category:1980s pop songs, Category:1970s rock songs, Category 1990s hip hop songs) is likely to be more rewarding for a user than is browsing a single year across multiple genres — or at least it is rewarding in a markedly different way, or rewarding to a different sort of user. (Of course, I'm not arguing against categories by year.) I have to admit I'm at a loss to understand category structure and why this would be a problem, but I do hope people don't ignore the fact that pop songs in particular are popularly categorized by decade (pop arguably being the most enduring genre) and most people who enjoy pop hits after that decade has passed think of, speak of, and categorize them as '50s songs, or '80s songs, and not 1958 songs or 1982 songs, if they ever even knew the year to begin with. Abrazame (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep to provide an additional means of navigation for this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball seasons

Propose renaming Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball seasons to Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs basketball seasons
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Louisiana Tech is one of the relatively few schools where men's and women's athletic programs have radically different nicknames. "Bulldogs" is used solely to refer to men's sports; women's sports use "Lady Techsters". See also Louisiana Tech Bulldogs and Lady Techsters. Dale Arnett (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Whatever we do, let's set a consistent rule of either always including "men's" / "women's" in college team titles for sports played by both, or including "men's" / "women's" only when the two teams share a common nickname. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I think that's a good idea, Alansohn—we do need to decide which way to do it. If we could get more users to comment, we could decide which way to go on this issue ... maybe a broader nomination of some sort would be helpful. Good Ol’factory 11:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Rename. Since it's impossible to have LA Tech Bulldogs women's basketball seasons, we don't need the "men's" here. For more on this subject, see this new nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Autism in Arts

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 to rename as nominated; renaming to Category:Autism in arts to fix capitalization. This is without prejudice to a user creating the proposed category as a subcategory. Good Ol’factory 02:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Autism in Arts to Category:Autism in fiction
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In line with naming of other similar categories under Category:Fiction by topic. GregorB (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Good Ol’factory 08:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~~~~

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:No Name as name

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. — ξ 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:No Name as name - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of unrelated subjects by shared name, the name in this case being "No Name". Good Ol’factory 05:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Hip hop groups discographies

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. Good Ol’factory 02:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggest merging Category:Hip hop groups discographies to Category:Hip hop discographies
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Doesn't seem to be an overly populated category to warrant such a division and the parent category adequately describes its contents. Wolfer68 (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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 Jews by state

Category:American Jews by state - Template:Lc1
Category: Alabama Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: California Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Colorado Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Connecticut Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Hawaii Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Illinois Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Iowa Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Louisiana Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Maryland Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Massachusetts Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Michigan Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: New Jersey Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: New York Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: New York City Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Ohio Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Pennsylvania Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: South Carolina Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Texas Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Utah Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Vermont Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Virginia Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Washington (U.S. state) Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Washington, D.C. Jews - Template:Lc1
Category: Wisconsin Jews - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete/upmerge. No other category for American people by religion or American people by ethnicity is broken down by state or by city. Since American people often spend significant parts of their life in different states of the U.S. and in different cities, I honestly don't see the point of attempting such a subdivision. The "scheme" is currently incomplete, with not all of the 50 states represented and each category typically only containing only a handful of entries, sometimes only one or two. Strictly speaking, each of these should be upmerged to its parents of Category:American Jews and Category:People from STATE. Good Ol’factory 05:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep All with some 3,000 uncategorized articles in the parent, a break down by state is a perfectly logical and defining means of categorization. This presents a model for other such laundry list religion categories that would greatly benefit by subcategorization. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    Agreed, if you have a better way of dividing up a list of 3,000 let me know.--Levineps (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    There already is a pre-existing way: by occupation. No need to invent a square wheel when the round one's already out there. Good Ol’factory 04:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Upmerge all to Category:American Jews and appropriate People from {State/City} categories. "American Jew" is a distinct, socially-significant ethnonational identity; "Washington (U.S. state) Jew" is not. I understand the desire to make large categories more manageable, but that does not justify creating new identities by simply intersecting two available characteristics. As far as ease of navigation is concerned, I would much rather use Template:Category TOC to navigate one ethnicity-nationality category of 3,000 people than have to search 50+ (many more if we start subcategorising by city) categories based on a detail (state or city) that is neither particularly stable (people relocate) nor significant. –BLACK FALCON 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    We do categories such as Category:American Major League Baseball players by home state and other occupations, when a category is so large dividing it by states makes it easier than just a laundry list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levineps (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, but... (1) "American Jew" is not an occupation. We have Category:American people by occupation by state, but not Category:American people by ethnicity by state. (2) I am not especially fond of the triple-intersection category (nationality, occupation, location) to which you point, and I believe that it could be upmerged to Category:Major League Baseball players from the United States (convention of Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin) and to appropriate subcategories of Category:People by state in the United States without any major loss of information. (3) If this category system is kept, then it should at least be renamed to American Jews from {State} (1st choice) or Jews from {State} for clarity. The format {State} Jews does not clearly indicate whether a category is for Jews born in {State}, living in {State}, who lived in {State} at some time in their lives, or who identify themselves as "{State} Jews" (the least likely). –BLACK FALCON 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    I agree with Black Falcon on these points. There is no large population of people who are self-identifying as "Connecticut Jews". Good Ol’factory 04:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    There's plenty of Jews in the Northeast (including Connecticut), Florida, and California. But so far it's 3-2, I've counted in favor of keeping this.--Levineps (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    Did you read what we wrote? Of course there are Jews living there; that's irrelevant to the argument. What we're saying is these people don't self-identify as "Connecticut Jews", or "Florida Jews". They self-identify as American Jews, and many if not most of them have been "from" multiple states in their lives. You are inventing ethnonational identities which has no real significance. (These discussions aren't about vote counting, they are about what is best for the encyclopedia based on its guidelines.) Good Ol’factory 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    Well I was going for the whole consensus argument, im sure if things were reversed you would use that argument as well.--Levineps (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    I don't see the point of discussing or arguing who is "winning" a discussion when it's ongoing. Can't we just address the issues that are raised, rather than just saying, "well, I'm winning"? Good Ol’factory 05:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    The article about David Emanuel (Governor of Georgia), who qualifies as a Pennsylvania Jew under this category system, seems to be a good example of some of the points made above. Emanuel was born in Pennsylvania and moved to Georgia with his family when he was approximately twenty years old (it is unclear whether he was still in Pennsylvania at the time). He married in Georgia, raised children in Georgia, fought in the Revolutionary War in Georgia, entered politics in Georgia, became Governor of Georgia, and died in Georgia, and there is virtually no information available about his life in Pennsylvania.
    The fact is that Emanuel was neither a Georgian Jew nor a Pennsylvanian Jew. He was an American Jew and the first Jewish Governor of a United States state, but his move across state boundaries did not make him any more or less Jewish. –BLACK FALCON 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as usefull way of breaking up large categories, per uncounted precedent. Debresser (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Why not Category:American Jews by year of birth? That would subdivide them just as well. And how is it decided what state (or city--note the NYC one) their Jewishness is associated with? postdlf (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    The same way the "Writers from" thing is.--Levineps (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    As with the Major League Baseball players example above, "writer" is an occupation. It is not implausible that a writer's work—it's style or subject—may be affected by location. It is, however, rather difficult to imagine that Jewishness varies greatly across state boundaries. –BLACK FALCON 07:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: I added two more categories to the nomination: Category:Louisiana Jews, which was apparently missed, and Category:Hawaii Jews, which was created about a day after the nomination. Levineps, please postpone creating additional categories or adding articles to existing categories until the end of this discussion. Surely there is no harm in waiting six more days to see if there is consensus to keep the categories, and if there is consensus to delete them, then fewer articles will have to be recategorised. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete/upmerge Levineps, this isn't about sitting back and waiting for the vote total to tilt your way, we're here to ask and answer questions, ideally every question asked and not just those for which you can make a curt quip. Where these people may have happened to reside for a few years is often completely irrelevant to who they are, while of course the thing they are notable for is the very purpose for their article. Ergo, if the general "American Jew" category needs to be broken down, it should be by that for which they are notable. Calling Bea Arthur a Maryland Jew is ridiculous. She was born and spent her first eleven years in New York. Her family then moved to Maryland, but sent her to high school in Pennsylvania, presumably three years later if not earlier, and presumably for four years or more, depending on their grade system. She then went to college in Virginia. If people want to cite her as being a person from every last place she ever lived, that's bad enough, though at least it is giving an honest data point; but to then doubly cite her as being a Jew from every last place she ever lived is absurd. It's overcategorization. It just plumb sounds offensive. Maryland Jew. What the hell is that, it's a neologism. "New York Jew" may mean something — or other — but "Maryland Jew"? Shall we then have "Maryland Unitarian"? "Maryland Atheist"? If it's not really a recognized category in the first place, it doesn't seem reasonable for us to categorize as such. Unless there is reliable sourcing for their Jewishness being linked to a region, they should not be placed in a list for such an awkward category. Abrazame (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    Well writers have moved all over, so if a writer has lived in five states, should we list all five or just where have been writing but once they've stopped writing can we list those places too?--Levineps (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    These aren't in the form of "American Jews from Maryland", where the "from" implies place of origin (birth and/or upraising), not merely anywhere they've hung their hat. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    Then I would suggest doing Jews "from." The New York, Baltimore, South Florida, LA, etc communities have rich Jewish culture and traditions--Levineps (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    How does the fact that a relatively small percentage of settlements—none of the examples you provided were of states (even "South Florida" is just a region of a state) and I am sure it has to do with the non-existence of Jewish communities that are "coherent, static" (postdlf, 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)) and state-specific—in the United States "have rich Jewish culture and traditions" and significant Jewish populations justify creating categories for every state? Also, to what extent are "Jewish culture and traditions" different from one state to another? –BLACK FALCON 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Upmerge all per nominator as excessively narrow intersection. And note wider concerns about the number of problematic categories created by this editor, who I urge to refrain for now from creating more categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • For those of you against this by state method, I would like you to suggest a better way to divide them up.--Levineps (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    That would depend on what the purpose of division is. If it's because you thought American Jews are best understood by state-specific groupings, that it's how historians and cultural scholars study them, then please demonstrate that. If it's only to make a big category smaller...then you still have to justify your particular choice of division. It's not a question of whether there's a suitable alternative presented. It's a question of justifying this subcategorization. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per nom and per above; Abrazame explains it well. I think part of the problem people are having though is that this combination of state with ethnic/religious group implies a coherent, static community. Like Pennsylvania Amish. But these categories obviously do not document such a thing. The only argument I see in favor of these so far is that they make a big category smaller, but that doesn't explain why this division is a good or useful one. And I have yet to see any indication that this structure is not completely unprecedented as a classification system, in its intersection of different facts. I'm open to a discussion, however, as to whether renaming to "American Jews from " may help cure some problems (maybe none, I don't know), but I would still want to see a justification as to why by state is useful here at all. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per above. If these categories must exist, they should be renamed "Jews from ". The only category that has any real-world usage is "New York Jew", and that's used only as an epithet. — Malik Shabazz /Stalk 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Upmerge per nom. There may be a way to break out the American Jews category, but this isn't it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Recommend manual upmerger. If this discussion is closed as "merge", please can the merge be done manually?
    Having checked some of the edits which populated the categories, I am concerned that simply getting the bots to do an upmerger will have some undesirable effects. Take a look at the following few sample edits I checked: , , , , , , . In every one of these cases, a bot-driven upmeger will cause some overcategorisation, in most cases because the people concerned were not previously in Category:People from whatever-state, but in a by-town or by-county sub-category of it.
    Most of these categories can be depopulated accurately by simply using rollback on the last edit by Levineps, and there are only ~200 articles in all, so it's not a daunting task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:New Zealand musical acts that have charted internationally

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: Listify and Delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:New Zealand musical acts that have charted internationally - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete/listify. This is a category that stands alone, without a greater scheme. There are no other categories for musical acts that charted somewhere outside of the country of origin. It intuitively feels like the type of thing that would be in a Misplaced Pages list, not a category. Good Ol’factory 05:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Worse, it feels like a delete. And ill-named at that. Debresser (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep but listify per Good Olfactory's comment stating feels like the type of thing that would be in a Misplaced Pages list. In fact, since plenty but not too many New Zealand acts have charted overseas an article based on New Zealand's international successes on music charts could make a great article, and maybe even be worthy of becoming a featured list.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
    • I didn't mean that this info should necessarily be in a list; what I meant was that information of this type—if it exists at all in Misplaced Pages—is typically contained in lists. Good Ol’factory 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete and listify per nom. This is unnecessary as a category, and far more information can be given in a list (e.g., number of times, where and when). The category is unnecessary and whiffs a little of Ocat by shared feature. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Alumni of The Law Society, University College Cork

Suggest merging Category:Alumni of The Law Society, University College Cork to Category:Alumni of University College Cork
Nominator's rationale: Merge. None of the people in this category are notable for having been a member of The Law Society, University College Cork, and I am aware of no other category for members of such societies (and only one of of the 3 articles in the category even mentions the society). We do have some categories for officers of particularly notable societies, such as Category:Presidents of the Cambridge Union Society (a huge proportion of holders of that office go on to become major figures in public life, so the office is notable as a launchpad) .. but I can find no other category for people in the UK or Ireland who were just members of a student society. I think we used to have categories for members of US Fraternities and sororities, but I think they have all been deleted: there don't seem to be any left at Category:Fraternities and sororities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Category:Miss Universo Italia

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. — ξ 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Miss Universo Italia to Category:Miss Universe Italy
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ENGLISH.  Mbinebri  03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Old Anandians

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. — ξ 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:Old Anandians to Category:Alumni of Ananda College
Nominator's rationale: Rename per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions to a plain-english, jargon-free name, which can be understood by Misplaced Pages's non-specialist readership when they see it in the category list at the bottom of an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Beauty pageant contestants

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. — ξ 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggest merging Category:Beauty pageant contestants to Category:Beauty pageant winners
Nominator's rationale: Per this CfD, simply being a "pageant contestant" is non-defining/non-notable. But, as most (maybe all) of these articles are on people who have won actual pageants, there's no sense in outright deleting the category when its contents can be merged to the pageant winners category, where they can be more easily sorted into appropriate subcats.  Mbinebri  03:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for 2 reasons:
    1. Dumping articles which may be on non-winners into the category of winners is not a good idea. If an article is miscategorised under "contestants" when it should be under one of the winners categories, then recategorise it ... but until that is done, we don't know what we are dealing with. When recategorising individual articles there is no advantage to starting from "winners" rather than contestants.
    2. The contestants category should not be deleted. Whilst merely being a contestant may not usually be a cause of notability, it is in some cases, for example when a contestant is the subject of scandal. (e.g. they used to be disqualified for being single mothers and so on). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
    • Reply: You make some valid points, but I would disagree on the basis that contestants would never get an article w/o first winning a notable pageant. For example, each Miss Universe contestant was a national pageant winner and before that a state-level pageant winner. If any of these articles are on contestants who never won anything of note, categorization is a moot point because the article would just be deleted anyway. And if the contestant's only claim to notability was scandal in the absence of a notable pageant win, the contestant's article would likely be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, and again, categorization would be moot.  Mbinebri  03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Reply. Well, you may be right, or maybe not. I think I recall a few women who first came to public notice as beauty pageant contestants, and who didn't win but used their appearance as a launchpad to some other career. However, we are both just speculating, so just recategorise the winners under their respective "Miss foo winners" categories, and we'll see what's left. But right now, there is no gain at all from dumping contestants who may be winners into the winners category, and lots potential for miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

oppose such a mass merge which would obvously result in unhelpful miscategorization. Category:Beauty pageant contestants is already a parent of Category:Beauty pageant winners as it should be. Consider deleting articles one by one from Category:Beauty pageant contestants if they already exist in Category:Beauty pageant winners. But what if they are a winner in one contest, but a participant non-winner in a different one? Hmains (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep One need not win a contest for their participation to be defining. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Didn't we have this converation before? Debresser (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
    • A few individual cases were discussed about a year ago with the consensus that "contestant" categories should be renamed "winner" categories (which is largely why I nominated the merge), but it seems that discussion didn't turn into a whole lot of action.  Mbinebri  02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment -- Being a contestant does not imply notability, but they may be notable for other reasons. A mass merge would mis-categorise non-winners. The answer to this is research into the content of the category, recategorising any winner as such, and nominating any NN contestants for AFD. This will enable then scale of the problem to be dertermined. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
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:Volyn tragedy

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. Good Ol’factory 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Suggest merging Category:Volyn tragedy to Category:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The two categories appear to be referring to the same thing, viz. Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Wood-free paper production in Egypt

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. Good Ol’factory 02:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Category:Wood-free paper production in Egypt - Template:Lc1
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#SMALL: "avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete I thought "wood-free paper in Egypt" was called Papyrus. Indeed, I even have a few modern papyrus artworks on my walls I brought back from Cairo. Going off-topic here. This article does not fit in the "Papyrology" category, but that's still not excuse for keeping a one-article category with no real potential to grow further. I've added the article to Category:Companies of Egypt which is where it belongs. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
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.

Video games set in the Xth millennium

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/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory 02:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Propose deleting
Category:Video games set in the 1st millennium - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 3rd century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 2nd millennium - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 11th century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 12th century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 13th century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 15th century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 16th century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 17th century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 18th century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 19th century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 20th century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 3rd millennium - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 21st century - Template:Lc1
Category:Disney games set in the 21st century - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the year 2012 - Template:Lc1
Category:Video games set in the 22nd century - Template:Lc1
Propose merging
Category:Video games set in the pre-20th century United States to Category:Video games set in the United States
Category:Video games set in the post-20th Century United States to Category:Video games set in the United States
Nominator's rationale: There are many ways to categorise video games by theme, but "by century" is a particularly problematic one. The problem lies in the fact that these categories do not distinguish between setting in an accurate version of a historical time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht in Stalingrad in 1942), a fictionalised version of a historical time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht in Kansas in 1942), or a completely fictional time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht on Mars in 1942). For example, the 1942 of Battlefield 1942 is very different from the 1942 of Turning Point: Fall of Liberty. The problem is even more pronounced with video games set in the future, where the makers of a game are free to let their imaginations run wild without any need to portray historical actors, events, or even locations. –BLACK FALCON 01:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Have you read the nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge United States categories and Delete others as set by the nominator. Video games are a form of fiction and, as the nominator sets, out the games' relationship with that time period varies between an attempt to recreate the period with some sense of historical accuracy and various degrees of fantasy. Unless clearly-defined inclusion criteria are set for these categories, these categories will either be highly misleading if they include if, for example, they include Turning Point: Fall of Liberty in Category:Video games set in the 20th century, or they will be unacceptably subjective (per WP:OCAT#SUBJECTIVE) if editors make their own undefined assessments. On the other hand, setting more precise inclusion criteria will fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY, because an arbitrary threshold would have to be set to determined what degree of fictionalisation was acceptable for inclusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Video games set in the early 20th century

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 (resulting from the nomination immediately above, where the merge targets were deleted). Good Ol’factory 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
Propose merging
Category:Video games set in the early 20th century to Category:Video games set in the 20th century
Category:Video games set in the late 20th century to Category:Video games set in the 20th century
Nominator's rationale: This nomination is a follow-up to the recent discussion for Cat:Video games set in the mid 20th century, which was merged to its parent category. Also see #Video games set in the Xth millennium (group nomination soon to be posted). –BLACK FALCON 01:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
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.

Video games by designer

Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Delete all as overcategorisation, because a list of games in the articles on each designer will do the job just fine.
I found these uncategorised categories, and added them to Category:Video games. However, so far as I can see there are no other categories of Category:Video games by designer, and plenty of other ways of categorising video games: by company, by game engine, by genre, by graphical style, by language, by platform, by region, by software license, by source, by theme or setting, and by year. We already have eleven category trees into which video games can be placed. Do we really need yet a twelfth way of categorising them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Video game designers getting their own categories is definitely overcategorization.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Likely replacable with a navbox template for each of the designers (which seems perfectly reasonable). --MASEM (t) 03:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Leaning towards delete: Few video game designers come to mind that have designed enough games to truly warrant a whole category. And as mentioned above, lists and navboxes in the relevant articles seems to accomplish the job well enough. (Guyinblack25 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC))
Delete - overcategorisation. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
I've added these categories to Category:Games by designer, and removed them from Category:Video games, where they were causing clutter.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No disrespect to your skills, Mike, and thanks for declaring the COI, but I'm not persuaded by that comparison. I don't know much about creating video games (it's more than ten years since I knew anyone in the business), but I do know that they are a team effort amongst a lot of people: there is simply too much code for one person to do the lot any more. So the designer is one cog in a machine (maybe a big cog, I dunno) rather than the sole creator as with books or paintings. I notice that many of the other types of games in these categories are board games or role-playing games, which are works capable of being developed entirely by one person. So it seems to me that video-game designers are a different breed to other game designers, in that they cannot be the only-begetters of the games.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No disrespect inferred, BHG. I grant it can be trickier with video games, but sometimes it's very clear. Cliff Johnson, Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux, Ron Gilbert, and American McGee are visionaries, and certainly merit their own categories (under the presumption that board game designers do). I don't know about Dave Grossman and Tim Schaefer, though. I think the principle should be that categories should only give credit where credit is due, and in the case of lead designers like McGee and Gilbert, it is due. Just my opinion, though; your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep All These are notable game designers who have created multiple notable games. This defining characteristic is one that should be made available for navigation purposes in addition to any existing list. The game designer is no less defining than the director of a film. It blows mind that an experienced admin can use "because a list of games in the articles on each designer will do the job just fine" as an excuse for deletion. We might as well just jettison the entire category system as the list "will do the job just fine" is a perfect argument to delete every category that exists. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 28: Difference between revisions Add topic