From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 12 June 14 >

June 13

Category:Role-playing video games by year

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 action. There is a consensus in this discssusion that the sub-categories of Category:Role-playing video games by year should not exist, and AFAICS that they should be merged to one of more parent categories. However, none of those categories have been included in this nomination, so the only effect of closing this discussion as "delete" would be to remove the parent category which groups Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 1975‎, Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 1977 etc ... which would pointless.
Furthermore, none of the sub-categories has been tagged, so it would be quite wrong for any action to be taken upon them when the readers of those categories have not been notified of this discussion.
So, if anyone wants to start a new CFD discussion which actually lists all the categories involved and sets out the proposed actions to them, then feel free to do without delay. Pinging all the editors involved in this discussion ... @ AdrianGamer, Ferret, The1337gamer, Mindmatrix, Hellknowz, and Marcocapelle: if you want help constructing a group nomination, feel free to ask on my talk page. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The consensus here and here show that this category and all its subcategories are vague and unnecessary. AdrianGamer ( talk) 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I'm not sure I see the relevance of WikiProject Vermont here. If there is a relevant discussion in its archives, please link to it. (I assume you were referring to the linked discussions above and mistakenly used an incorrect shortcut?) Mind matrix 17:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Corrected. -- The1337gamer ( talk) 17:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I originally created this category tree to match the various board game and card game categories, most of which I created. Those categories were named using 'introduced' for consistency with earlier categories, which I should have avoided from the start and simply used 'X role-playing games' for a given year 'X'. (See this 2014 discussion on my talk page for some info.) The intention was to intersect Category:Role-playing games by year and Category:Role-playing video games. I don't really care about the result of this discussion, but there is a plausible reason why these (horribly misnamed) categories exist. Mind matrix 17:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as (naming issue aside) a fairly arbitrary cross-categorization. Genre by year does not seem to be the most useful solution (for WP's lacking feature of cross-category search). We already have both the year and genre categories and this simply makes it more cumbersome to browse games from the genre or potentially many sub-genres. I could see the reason for such categorization for broad topics, like "card games" or "video game" (which we already have), but I don't think it's useful when we break them down further, especially since genres are sometimes vague and overlap. —   HELLKNOWZ  ▎ TALK 10:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural comment, if I understand correctly, all arguments for deletion most particularly apply to the child categories of the nominated category. If that's the case, the child categories should be nominated, and they should probably be nominated for upmerging to their respective parent categories rather than nominated for straight deletion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:57, 20 June 2016 (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:Art music

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: No potential for expansion, since the same role is already fulfilled by Category:Classical and art music traditions. CN1 ( talk) 19:00, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to the latter, then, not delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:54, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Sure there is potential for expansion. However, we don't currently have more content about art music in general, so merge for now, until our content has been expanded. -- PanchoS ( talk) 21:24, 19 June 2016 (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:Companies established in 578

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/rename as per nom. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 04:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Propose merging:
Companies by year/decade of establishment
Organizations by year of establishment
Years in economics
Decades in economic history
  • Propose renaming/merging:
Banks/Hotels by (dis)establishment
Nominator's rationale: While these are established schemes at least from the 19th century on, in early centuries they produce WP:SMALLCATs that aren't helpful for organizing our content nor for navigation. PanchoS ( talk) 10:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support I'm open to WP:SMALLCAT exceptions with small countries or an off year. But these time periods seem unlikely to ever be well populated and I don't see a navigational benefit. RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support, I had noticed the 578 company establishment before and considered to nominate that single category, I'm glad that nominator took it a bit broader here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:01, 20 June 2016 (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:Birds of Angola

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 as per nom. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 17:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
categories for other countries
Nominator's rationale: Many birds have a distribution that includes many countries - e.g. see categories at Common waxbill or Goliath heron (currently in 42 country categories most of which aren't mentioned in the article text). The folly of this sort of categorization is demonstrated by Black-headed oriole which says "It breeds in much of sub-Saharan Africa from South Sudan and Ethiopia in the north to South Africa in the south." and has thus been placed in categories for the 3 countries specifically mentioned (i.e. the countries at the extremes of its range), but not in the countries between them. Red-billed firefinch says "in most of Sub-Saharan Africa", but it is not (currently) categorized for most African countries - so the categories don't even work as complete lists.
Note: Most/all of these categories contain a "List of birds in <country>" article which should stay in a category for the relevant country, but all I've checked are already in a suitable category (e.g. Category:Lists of biota of Angola) so no upmerge is needed. Similarly, Category:Important Bird Areas of Niger is already in a Niger category.
Note: Categories for islands (e.g. Madagascar) are not included in this nomination.
Example of a previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories. Note: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_13#Category:Birds_of_Africa (closed as no consensus) DexDor (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Sub-Saharan Africa (at about 15% of the World's land area) is about the right size for these categories (it puts most birds in about 1-3 such categories and few in more than 4); we are trying to categorize here, not to shoehorn an encoding of the distribution of each species into the category system. Article text (where complications can be explained and references provided) and diagrams are a much better way to present information about distribution of a species to readers (and, of course, we can have list-of-birds-in-area articles for quite small areas). As a matter of practicality it's likely that more editors/readers are familiar with the meaning of Sub-Saharan Africa than are familiar with, for example, Central Africa. DexDor (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • For now, I'm waiting for some more input, but if that's the case (1–3 categories of these per bird on average), then I'm fine with the proposal. -- PanchoS ( talk) 09:33, 14 June 2016 (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:Organizations of the Jack Abramoff scandals

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, while merging some of the contents to Category:Jack Abramoff scandals, as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: listify and delete, these are organizations associated with the Jack Abramoff scandals, we don't categorize by mere association. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Oppose These are front companies and non-profits whose primary purpose was to launder money in Abramoff's financial shell game. Indeed, the scandal may not have been able to happen without the fake Kaygold company. The only article that seems like it's a mere association that you describe is the Americans for Tax Reform so I removed that one from the category. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ RevelationDirect: You allege that these companies "are front companies and non-profits whose primary purpose was to launder money in Abramoff's financial shell game." As regards Preston Gates, the company that incorporated Microsoft and was its lead outside lawyers for decades, please provide reliable sources or retract your comment. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • You're right, I spoke too broadly See below for examples that go the other way. RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:09, 13 June 2016 (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.

Fictional Buddhist monks

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with parent categories; inclusiveness is better than creating more categories. -- Atvica ( talk) 04:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. The monks/nuns trees are currently separate, so combining them in just this one subcategory doesn't make much sense. I might be receptive to a larger nomination that combines all of them, though. ~ Rob Talk 17:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose we have Category:Fictional monks, that does not make this merger. The roles and social expectations of monks and nuns differ enough to justify not combining them. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:47, 29 June 2016 (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.

Mayotte

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. There may be consensus for a more restricted, but the arrival of the compromise proposal part way through the discussion makes that hard to evaluate. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Two articles in this tree. ~ Rob Talk 04:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose part of a well-established tree with many large cats and some small cats, reflecting the size of the countries / dependencies and the attention they have received on enwiki. I'll add some other Mayotte year establishments to flesh out the tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram ( talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 June 2016‎
Could you describe how a one-article category hidden within multiple layers of container categories helps readers find articles, which is the point of categorization? The SMALLCAT exception is not a suicide pact. ~ Rob Talk 07:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Yeah, I have seen that dramatically titled user subpage you have before. It's obviously not part of our guidelines, so you can link to it as much as you want but I don't really care for it and don't take it into account. WP:BEFORE: before suggesting to upmerge categories, first check if there aren't more pages that belong in these categories. Instead of 2, we now have 9 pages in this tree, which makes e.g. Category:Establishments in Mayotte by year a useful page. It can be expanded further if the establishment year of the airport, some political parties, football grounds, ... can be added. You suggest upmerging to e.g. Category:1978 establishments in Africa, but these continent categories are not supposed to have loose articles in them, they are intended to have pages by country. At the moment, 15 of the 25 subcategories there only have one article in them, so it's not as if the Mayotte one is an exception here. Fram ( talk) 08:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Depends on whether you truly are looking for articles about that subject (establishments in Africa in that year), or whether you are using it as a navigational aid towards articles about establishments in certain countries in Africa. I think the latter happens more than the former. Fram ( talk) 06:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support Eliminating 10 articles in exchange for adding a few categories to 2 articles seems like a good trade to me. These categories are conceptually fine but I don't think WP:SMALLCAT justifies whole un/underpopulated category trees. RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Like I said above, it is no longer about 2 articles, but about 9 (with the potential to add some others as well). Fram ( talk) 12:06, 15 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom, except keep Category:20th-century establishments in Mayotte‎, Category:2nd-millennium establishments in Mayotte‎, Category:21st-century establishments in Mayotte‎, Category:3rd-millennium establishments in Mayotte‎ after recent expansion of the tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment from nominator. I'm fine with the compromise solution that keeps centuries and millennia categories. The categories have been populated a tad since I nominated. ~ Rob Talk 04:43, 17 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support the proposed compromise of keeping the broad century and millennium categories, but upmerging the individual year ones. For a small dependency of another country, the necessary degree of categorization may not always be equivalent in volume to what a country gets — if there were a lot of content for them, then the by-year categories would be fine, but it isn't the most useful or reader-benefiting way to organize the content if they're all one-or-two-item WP:SMALLCATs with little to no prospect of expansion. Bearcat ( talk) 18:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support for the record I created the 1991 category. We do not have enough articles in the Mayotte Category to justify it being split off, and not enough in the France categories to justify them absolutely needing to be split. It is true that there are lots more articles that could be put in establishment categories, but my work on this suggests we are unlikely to find many more for Mayotte. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:50, 29 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support the revised proposal of upmerging, though I'd keep the decade categories. It's worth noting that several Mayotte articles don't have establishment dates, which could surely be found (two of the political parties, the airport, the sports stadia...) - though none of the categories would be particularly big, I think that by-decade categories would be reasonable. Grutness... wha? 02:55, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
    • There have been some past discussions where editors have balked at keeping decades as an end-level category. I'm not really convinced it's a bad idea, but it would be inconsistent with the results of past discussions. ~ Rob13 Talk 03:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Fair enough - it would seem the logical curse of action in cases like this, though, and certainly no worse than keeping century categories in the same way. Grutness... wha? 02:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
        • Agree on all counts. I'm just noting the precedent. We really need some effective way to have larger scale conversations about these sorts of things. It's not feasible to nominate the whole establishments tree (!) for an actual discussion establishing some standards, but that's what we really need. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose all. Merging to Category:1978 establishments in France would be fine, but we do not want articles directly in the year-by-continent categories such as Category:1978 establishments in Africa, and it would be unclear why an institution was in an events category Category:1978 in Mayotte – it is the establishment of the institution that is the event. IMHO these nominated categories perform a valid function and are generally working well. Also, IMHO is is better to have clutter in the category system, with small categories, than to add three categories instead of one at the foot of an article. – Fayenatic L ondon 07:44, 9 July 2016 (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.

Fictional characters by religion

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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories were deleted in 2008. They keep getting re-created and speedily re-deleted. Given that it has been eight years, I figured we may as well revisit the issue to see if consensus has changed on the matter. I am neutral, though if the head category is kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:Fictional characters by religion. ( Category:Fictional Jews was also deleted in 2008, but it was kept in a 2010 discussion as an ethnicity category, so it is not included in this discussion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Comment A more inclusive name would be Category:Fictional practitioners of a religious denomination or theology, as not every "belief" or "spirituality" is strictly religious. -- Atvica ( talk) 05:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ User:Good Olfactory - can you provide some info re "keep getting re-created and speedily re-deleted"? DexDor (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
In addition to the initial deletion, Category:Fictional Muslims has been speedily deleted four times as re-created material. Category:Fictional Christians has been speedily deleted twice, as has Category:Fictional Buddhists. I don't mean to imply that the categories are being created every month or anything like that. But since 2008, these three categories have now been re-created a combined total of 11 times. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all not defining; characters can be written for any religion not pertinent to anything the character does. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all as not necessary defining. We do have categories where the religion is significant (e.g., Category:Fictional clergy, Category:Fictional monks, etc.), and that should be sufficient. Neutrality talk 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and salt. We shouldn't have to repeatedly delete bad categories (it's a waste of editor time - e.g. watchlist noise on the articles affected). If anyone thinks a category that has been deleted (after discussion) should exist they should start a discussion (inviting participation from relevant wikiprojects - in this case fiction, religion and categorization) (or, if recently deleted, a DRV) and get consensus before re-creating it. DexDor (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2016 (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:Inspirational literature

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 inspirational result of the discussion was: delete both. The bot will do the inspirational works to eliminate them. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 08:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, subjective inclusion criterion. See also this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:59, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_13&oldid=1084319313"