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. bibliomaniac15 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories are non-defining intersections of their various genres and
Category:Open-source video games. Each should be upmerged as appropriate.
Izno (
talk) 21:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. @
Izno, please revise the nomination to set out exactly what merges are proposed for each of the nominated categories. The nomination as it stands is too vague to be considered. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I would have thought "merge to their respective genre parents" would be sufficient.
I have little interest in enumerating each genre category, and naturally each article should end up in
Category:open-source video games as well. Is that what you wanted clarified? --
Izno (
talk) 11:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I guess there are some articles like
0 A.D. (video game) which are in another child category of
Category:Strategy video games that I don't think anyone would like to see in that category as that would be an unnecessary parent. I'm not sure if there's anything practical to be done about that.... From what I recall seeing, I am somewhat doubtful all of the articles in this batch are like that. --
Izno (
talk) 14:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
(Which I suppose is another reason to eliminate this set of categories. --
Izno (
talk) 14:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC))reply
Oppose for Category:Open-source roguelikes(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs). Open source is a defining characteristic for this class of games and open source is how the genre got started. Open source status yields two completely different modding communities for closed and open source. Open source status was central to the development and evolution of many of theses game; witness the Moria/Angband family of games. I guess you are not a modder? --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk} 18:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
We don't judge the utility of a category by whether a certain non-mainstream community treats the topic but by how reliable sources do. (Whether I am a modder is irrelevant,
to boot.) Even in the case that open-source is important to that genre, we still end up in a
WP:SMALLCAT situation and the "odd-man out" kind of category, which will just lead us to having this set of parallel categories again. These games will retain their categories as "open-source" and as "roguelikes" at the end of the day if these are merged, so it is a trivial intersection using one or another of the tools for such (
WP:Petscan,
Special:Search) to identify. For some context about your claim,
List of roguelikes does not include open/closed status. --
Izno (
talk) 02:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Apologies for the modder comment--I think expertise is invaluable in judging categories, but should not have singled you out. Nonetheless, (1) the "royal we", (2) disparaging a gaming community, (3) claiming reliable sources without naming them, (4) no this is not a small cat situation as having few subcats under a cat is just fine, (5) "odd-man out"??, (6) worrying about a maintenance hassle, (7) substituting search engines for a gap in our categories, and (8) claiming an incomplete list as some kind of evidence--all of these are weak, non-policy based arguments for deletion that do not add up to a strong argument for deletion. I will retain my oppose for this category of games. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk} 05:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The list of roguelike table can be fixed to include that status, but again, the main
roguelike page had plenty of details of why open-source was key to the genre and why there are so many variants. --
Masem (
t) 00:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support - as Izno states, the cross section itself is not a defining trait in each scenario.
Sergecross73msg me 02:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support all per nom. Superfluous cross-section that could be well handled with two separate categories.
IceWelder [
✉] 05:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support All, per nom. Not a defining trait. --
ferret (
talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support expect for
Category:Open-source roguelikes which should be kept, as I do have to agree with Mark Viking - this is actually a well-defined cross-categorized given the history of roguelikes. None of the other listed cats have any similar type of vector. Another way to put this, if we are tracking the history of video games, roguelikes and their origins from open-source projects are key, where as taking a cat like "Open-source shooter games", there's no historical factor there, simply that as shooter games gained popularity, that people made open-source variants. That's where there's weak cross-categorization. --
Masem (
t) 00:12, 29 May 2020 (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:Open-source 3D video games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. bibliomaniac15 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. --
ferret (
talk) 13:35, 27 May 2020 (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:Macedonian Front
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:speedy rename. bibliomaniac15 03:25, 2 June 2020 (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:Sequel films 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.
Oppose The categories are not small, and the category tree does not violate any policy.
Dimadick (
talk) 10:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Kbdank71 18:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom. Non-defining cross-categorization, populated almost entirely by a single editor without discussion and refusal to discussion. --
ferret (
talk) 13:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The year categories are recent but not sure what you mean by "refusal to discussion"; there is no mention of "sequel" on their talk page. The decade categories were created a few years ago by other editors.
Peter James (
talk) 13:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now; needs more discussion. The decade categories have existed for a few years; the year categories were created recently. They are sometimes more defining than the nationality of the companies that made the films. If there are too few articles for each category (there are smaller categories for companies by year, location or industry, and articles related to cities - is there a WikiProject guideline somewhere?), could the year categories be merged to the decade categories? Also instead of deletion would they be better merged so all articles are in
Category:Sequel films? If 1500 articles is too many and articles are moved to subcategories, it should also be by year.
Peter James (
talk) 13:52, 3 June 2020 (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:Video game franchises by year of disestablishment
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. bibliomaniac15 03:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Serves zero purpose. Limited scope and not something I see being useful for finding anything.
Namcokid47(Contribs) 20:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. A video game franchise (or any media franchise for that matter) is not disestablished, discontinued or cancelled or whatever just because there haven't been any recent new releases. It's
WP:OR /
WP:SYNTH and reverse
WP:CRYSTAL.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per the nom and argument brought up by Soetermans.
IceWelder [
✉] 20:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The number of video game series that are known to be dead and never to have another game ever can be probably counted on one hand, if that many. This is rarely actually established; a series may go into an indefinite hiatus, but never disestablished. --
Masem (
t) 20:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom and Soetermans. --
ferret (
talk) 21:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Soetermans.
OceanHok (
talk) 16:27, 31 May 2020 (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:Cathedrals in West Bengal
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 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:Chosun Broadcasting Company television programmes
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. bibliomaniac15 03:29, 2 June 2020 (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:Sequel video games 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
this discussion at
WT:VG.An unnecessary and non-defining cross-categoriation with a limited scope.
IceWelder [
✉] 14:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all - There is no special recognition of sequels by years in the reliable sources; this is unnecessary cross-categorization. --
Masem (
t) 15:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all Per nom and Masem. This is not a defining characteristic. Note also that a similar category set was also created for films... --
ferret (
talk) 15:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all - Honestly, what purpose are these categories supposed to have? Sources certainly don't acknowledge anything like this, and I don't ever see this being of use to anybody.
Namcokid47(Contribs) 16:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all, not a defining characteristic.
Axem Titanium (
talk) 16:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
All of these articles are already in their normal category, i.e. "2000 video games". The new categories were added by a single user without removing any parent categories (if 2000 video games was even set as a parent). --
ferret (
talk) 13:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
ferret, the action should still be to merge. The bot will handle the merger to avoid any duplicate category entries. Even if the categories were originally populated without regard to
WP:SUBCAT, other editors may apply
WP:SUBCAT and remove the pages from e.g. "2000 video games". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion, but support merge to the relevant year category, per my reply above to ferret. Merge ensures that all the article will end up in the relevant year category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
I still don't see the use of merging if the category should not be used at all in the first place. All of the articles are already in their correct categories, thus no further work is required. ~
Dissident93(
talk) 22:40, 29 May 2020 (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:Articles with WikiMiniAtlas displaying incorrectly: not displayed on top of page
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 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.
TV networks
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.
Support as nom.
Oculi (
talk) 11:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, less ambiguous (e.g. German television networks might wrongly be taken as German-language tv networks).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Down with the tyranny of demonyms.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 20:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose It creates ambiguities for some countries. For example, with the Category:Mexican television networks, only the networks of Mexican origin are included, but with the new name Category:Television networks in Mexico, American networks that are, not only broadcasting within the range of Mexican territories, but also broadcasting from Mexican-licensed stations, will have to be included also. For the American counterpart, both Mexican and Canadian networks will have to be included. Instead of the use of 'in', 'of' should be used.--
MexTDT (
talk) 22:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I am neutral between "in" and "of".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:32, 5 June 2020 (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.
Associations
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:disperse/mergeTimrollpickering (
talk) 12:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: in the
the previous discussion, there was sort of consensus that
Category:Associations is merely a matter of
WP:SHAREDNAME, but nothing happened yet because there is a whole set of subcategories that needs to be addressed simultaneously. So here is the full proposal, basically to merge everything to Non-profit organizations.
Support Clicking through these, most have "Category:Professional associations based in X" and a few loose articles, all of which can be described as non-profit. (UK's is a little different, but still non-profit.) There is likely some further diffusion of many of these loose articles but this nom gets rid of a duplicate and vague category tree based on
WP:SHAREDNAME.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes please. Thank you for this. I suspect there will be a bit more sweeping up to do. Are we sure that none of these professional associations make profits?
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Oculi (
talk) 11:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The whole concept of "non-profit" is a US tax category, whose use is inappropriate elsewhere. I agree the present category is unhelpful and should go, but I object to the use of an American tax category. In checking content, I found the majority had nothing in them but a professional associations subcat, which should be parented by a new
Category:Professional Associations by continent. Spain has an association of municipalities, which will be an emanation of local government; UK has a mishmash with little coherence and could have a lot more content; the Russian case fits the nom but it sounds political. I think the best solution is recategorize contents then delete when empty.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I am glad that you agree with the removal of these categories. As for the term non-profit, it is certainly not exclusively American, see for example this Dutch-language
website for job vacancies in government and non-profit organizations.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Like
Peterkingiron I dont much like non-profit as a basis for categories. I recall discussions about Non-government organizations, which we decided should go because it was so difficult to define as a negative. I'd be perfectly happy with the professional associations, which is the main content, sitting directly in the categories of organizations based in Foo.
Rathfelder (
talk) 22:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Fair enough if you intend to propose upmerging of non-profit organizations in a later stage. But while they still exist they are the right merge target for this nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I also favor some additional work here but this nom is in the right direction.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I think we will need a different approach in countries where Non-profit organization is a verifiable legal status from those where it is just a negative description.
Rathfelder (
talk) 09:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
After some hesitation I think I will agree with a future merge nomination of non-profit organizations. After all, it contains almost all sorts of organizations but companies.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:14, 26 May 2020 (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:Nation's Little Sisters
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. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Non-defining characteristic. Per the
article, these are informal titles that refer to "a young female [or male] celebrity in her [or his] late teens to early twenties... [who is] cute, bright, and innocent."
ƏXPLICIT 02:57, 24 May 2020 (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:AAA Hall of Fame
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. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The
AAA Hall of Fame was founded in 2007 and recognizes professional wrestlers in Mexico, where there is a distinct style. The biography articles in this category generally mention the award in passing, often with other awards, so it doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to
WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome
here. -RD
Delete. A list's fine but a category's certainly not needed. Had me puzzled for a while becuse I couldn't work out what Mexican wrestling had to do with the
AAA.
Grutness...wha? 04:24, 24 May 2020 (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:German Ice Hockey Hall of Fame inductees
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. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The
German Ice Hockey Hall of Fame was founded in 1988 and mentions to in on the web are mostly Wikipedia and mirror sites. The biography articles in this category generally are split between not mentioning the the award at all or mentioning it in passing with other halls of fame so it doesn't seem defining. (A few do mention it in intro but that appears to be due to one enthusiastic editor.) The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to
WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome
here. -RD
Delete another NN OCAWARD case. Could someone do a mass nom?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Years ago I tried that and it became a trainwreck. Perhaps something in between might work, like five to ten categories simultaneously with a related scope.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'll look at where I can do some small groups.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:05, 25 May 2020 (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.
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. bibliomaniac15 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories are non-defining intersections of their various genres and
Category:Open-source video games. Each should be upmerged as appropriate.
Izno (
talk) 21:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now. @
Izno, please revise the nomination to set out exactly what merges are proposed for each of the nominated categories. The nomination as it stands is too vague to be considered. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I would have thought "merge to their respective genre parents" would be sufficient.
I have little interest in enumerating each genre category, and naturally each article should end up in
Category:open-source video games as well. Is that what you wanted clarified? --
Izno (
talk) 11:25, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I guess there are some articles like
0 A.D. (video game) which are in another child category of
Category:Strategy video games that I don't think anyone would like to see in that category as that would be an unnecessary parent. I'm not sure if there's anything practical to be done about that.... From what I recall seeing, I am somewhat doubtful all of the articles in this batch are like that. --
Izno (
talk) 14:03, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
(Which I suppose is another reason to eliminate this set of categories. --
Izno (
talk) 14:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC))reply
Oppose for Category:Open-source roguelikes(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs). Open source is a defining characteristic for this class of games and open source is how the genre got started. Open source status yields two completely different modding communities for closed and open source. Open source status was central to the development and evolution of many of theses game; witness the Moria/Angband family of games. I guess you are not a modder? --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk} 18:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
We don't judge the utility of a category by whether a certain non-mainstream community treats the topic but by how reliable sources do. (Whether I am a modder is irrelevant,
to boot.) Even in the case that open-source is important to that genre, we still end up in a
WP:SMALLCAT situation and the "odd-man out" kind of category, which will just lead us to having this set of parallel categories again. These games will retain their categories as "open-source" and as "roguelikes" at the end of the day if these are merged, so it is a trivial intersection using one or another of the tools for such (
WP:Petscan,
Special:Search) to identify. For some context about your claim,
List of roguelikes does not include open/closed status. --
Izno (
talk) 02:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Apologies for the modder comment--I think expertise is invaluable in judging categories, but should not have singled you out. Nonetheless, (1) the "royal we", (2) disparaging a gaming community, (3) claiming reliable sources without naming them, (4) no this is not a small cat situation as having few subcats under a cat is just fine, (5) "odd-man out"??, (6) worrying about a maintenance hassle, (7) substituting search engines for a gap in our categories, and (8) claiming an incomplete list as some kind of evidence--all of these are weak, non-policy based arguments for deletion that do not add up to a strong argument for deletion. I will retain my oppose for this category of games. --{{u|
Mark viking}} {
Talk} 05:04, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The list of roguelike table can be fixed to include that status, but again, the main
roguelike page had plenty of details of why open-source was key to the genre and why there are so many variants. --
Masem (
t) 00:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support - as Izno states, the cross section itself is not a defining trait in each scenario.
Sergecross73msg me 02:44, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support all per nom. Superfluous cross-section that could be well handled with two separate categories.
IceWelder [
✉] 05:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support All, per nom. Not a defining trait. --
ferret (
talk) 13:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support expect for
Category:Open-source roguelikes which should be kept, as I do have to agree with Mark Viking - this is actually a well-defined cross-categorized given the history of roguelikes. None of the other listed cats have any similar type of vector. Another way to put this, if we are tracking the history of video games, roguelikes and their origins from open-source projects are key, where as taking a cat like "Open-source shooter games", there's no historical factor there, simply that as shooter games gained popularity, that people made open-source variants. That's where there's weak cross-categorization. --
Masem (
t) 00:12, 29 May 2020 (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:Open-source 3D video games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. bibliomaniac15 22:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. --
ferret (
talk) 13:35, 27 May 2020 (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:Macedonian Front
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:speedy rename. bibliomaniac15 03:25, 2 June 2020 (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:Sequel films 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.
Oppose The categories are not small, and the category tree does not violate any policy.
Dimadick (
talk) 10:46, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Kbdank71 18:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom. Non-defining cross-categorization, populated almost entirely by a single editor without discussion and refusal to discussion. --
ferret (
talk) 13:37, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
The year categories are recent but not sure what you mean by "refusal to discussion"; there is no mention of "sequel" on their talk page. The decade categories were created a few years ago by other editors.
Peter James (
talk) 13:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose for now; needs more discussion. The decade categories have existed for a few years; the year categories were created recently. They are sometimes more defining than the nationality of the companies that made the films. If there are too few articles for each category (there are smaller categories for companies by year, location or industry, and articles related to cities - is there a WikiProject guideline somewhere?), could the year categories be merged to the decade categories? Also instead of deletion would they be better merged so all articles are in
Category:Sequel films? If 1500 articles is too many and articles are moved to subcategories, it should also be by year.
Peter James (
talk) 13:52, 3 June 2020 (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:Video game franchises by year of disestablishment
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. bibliomaniac15 03:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Serves zero purpose. Limited scope and not something I see being useful for finding anything.
Namcokid47(Contribs) 20:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. A video game franchise (or any media franchise for that matter) is not disestablished, discontinued or cancelled or whatever just because there haven't been any recent new releases. It's
WP:OR /
WP:SYNTH and reverse
WP:CRYSTAL.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 20:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per the nom and argument brought up by Soetermans.
IceWelder [
✉] 20:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete The number of video game series that are known to be dead and never to have another game ever can be probably counted on one hand, if that many. This is rarely actually established; a series may go into an indefinite hiatus, but never disestablished. --
Masem (
t) 20:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Per nom and Soetermans. --
ferret (
talk) 21:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per Soetermans.
OceanHok (
talk) 16:27, 31 May 2020 (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:Cathedrals in West Bengal
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 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:Chosun Broadcasting Company television programmes
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. bibliomaniac15 03:29, 2 June 2020 (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:Sequel video games 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
this discussion at
WT:VG.An unnecessary and non-defining cross-categoriation with a limited scope.
IceWelder [
✉] 14:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all - There is no special recognition of sequels by years in the reliable sources; this is unnecessary cross-categorization. --
Masem (
t) 15:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all Per nom and Masem. This is not a defining characteristic. Note also that a similar category set was also created for films... --
ferret (
talk) 15:22, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all - Honestly, what purpose are these categories supposed to have? Sources certainly don't acknowledge anything like this, and I don't ever see this being of use to anybody.
Namcokid47(Contribs) 16:05, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all, not a defining characteristic.
Axem Titanium (
talk) 16:46, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
All of these articles are already in their normal category, i.e. "2000 video games". The new categories were added by a single user without removing any parent categories (if 2000 video games was even set as a parent). --
ferret (
talk) 13:34, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
@
ferret, the action should still be to merge. The bot will handle the merger to avoid any duplicate category entries. Even if the categories were originally populated without regard to
WP:SUBCAT, other editors may apply
WP:SUBCAT and remove the pages from e.g. "2000 video games". --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose deletion, but support merge to the relevant year category, per my reply above to ferret. Merge ensures that all the article will end up in the relevant year category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
I still don't see the use of merging if the category should not be used at all in the first place. All of the articles are already in their correct categories, thus no further work is required. ~
Dissident93(
talk) 22:40, 29 May 2020 (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:Articles with WikiMiniAtlas displaying incorrectly: not displayed on top of page
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 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.
TV networks
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.
Support as nom.
Oculi (
talk) 11:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, less ambiguous (e.g. German television networks might wrongly be taken as German-language tv networks).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:28, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Down with the tyranny of demonyms.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 20:07, 27 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose It creates ambiguities for some countries. For example, with the Category:Mexican television networks, only the networks of Mexican origin are included, but with the new name Category:Television networks in Mexico, American networks that are, not only broadcasting within the range of Mexican territories, but also broadcasting from Mexican-licensed stations, will have to be included also. For the American counterpart, both Mexican and Canadian networks will have to be included. Instead of the use of 'in', 'of' should be used.--
MexTDT (
talk) 22:05, 1 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I am neutral between "in" and "of".
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:32, 5 June 2020 (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.
Associations
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:disperse/mergeTimrollpickering (
talk) 12:45, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: in the
the previous discussion, there was sort of consensus that
Category:Associations is merely a matter of
WP:SHAREDNAME, but nothing happened yet because there is a whole set of subcategories that needs to be addressed simultaneously. So here is the full proposal, basically to merge everything to Non-profit organizations.
Support Clicking through these, most have "Category:Professional associations based in X" and a few loose articles, all of which can be described as non-profit. (UK's is a little different, but still non-profit.) There is likely some further diffusion of many of these loose articles but this nom gets rid of a duplicate and vague category tree based on
WP:SHAREDNAME.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes please. Thank you for this. I suspect there will be a bit more sweeping up to do. Are we sure that none of these professional associations make profits?
Rathfelder (
talk) 10:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per nom.
Oculi (
talk) 11:08, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The whole concept of "non-profit" is a US tax category, whose use is inappropriate elsewhere. I agree the present category is unhelpful and should go, but I object to the use of an American tax category. In checking content, I found the majority had nothing in them but a professional associations subcat, which should be parented by a new
Category:Professional Associations by continent. Spain has an association of municipalities, which will be an emanation of local government; UK has a mishmash with little coherence and could have a lot more content; the Russian case fits the nom but it sounds political. I think the best solution is recategorize contents then delete when empty.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I am glad that you agree with the removal of these categories. As for the term non-profit, it is certainly not exclusively American, see for example this Dutch-language
website for job vacancies in government and non-profit organizations.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Like
Peterkingiron I dont much like non-profit as a basis for categories. I recall discussions about Non-government organizations, which we decided should go because it was so difficult to define as a negative. I'd be perfectly happy with the professional associations, which is the main content, sitting directly in the categories of organizations based in Foo.
Rathfelder (
talk) 22:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Fair enough if you intend to propose upmerging of non-profit organizations in a later stage. But while they still exist they are the right merge target for this nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I also favor some additional work here but this nom is in the right direction.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 01:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I think we will need a different approach in countries where Non-profit organization is a verifiable legal status from those where it is just a negative description.
Rathfelder (
talk) 09:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)reply
After some hesitation I think I will agree with a future merge nomination of non-profit organizations. After all, it contains almost all sorts of organizations but companies.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:14, 26 May 2020 (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:Nation's Little Sisters
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. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Non-defining characteristic. Per the
article, these are informal titles that refer to "a young female [or male] celebrity in her [or his] late teens to early twenties... [who is] cute, bright, and innocent."
ƏXPLICIT 02:57, 24 May 2020 (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:AAA Hall of Fame
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. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The
AAA Hall of Fame was founded in 2007 and recognizes professional wrestlers in Mexico, where there is a distinct style. The biography articles in this category generally mention the award in passing, often with other awards, so it doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to
WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome
here. -RD
Delete. A list's fine but a category's certainly not needed. Had me puzzled for a while becuse I couldn't work out what Mexican wrestling had to do with the
AAA.
Grutness...wha? 04:24, 24 May 2020 (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:German Ice Hockey Hall of Fame inductees
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. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The
German Ice Hockey Hall of Fame was founded in 1988 and mentions to in on the web are mostly Wikipedia and mirror sites. The biography articles in this category generally are split between not mentioning the the award at all or mentioning it in passing with other halls of fame so it doesn't seem defining. (A few do mention it in intro but that appears to be due to one enthusiastic editor.) The contents of the category are already listified
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to
WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome
here. -RD
Delete another NN OCAWARD case. Could someone do a mass nom?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Years ago I tried that and it became a trainwreck. Perhaps something in between might work, like five to ten categories simultaneously with a related scope.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:11, 24 May 2020 (UTC)reply
I'll look at where I can do some small groups.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:05, 25 May 2020 (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.