Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 1 September 3 >

September 2

[edit]

Category:Video games featuring female antagonists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining trait of a video game, over-broad and unclear inclusion criteria. Recently created category as well (< 1 month). The description attempts to tamp down the vast scope - how many video games don't include at least *one* female antagonist these days - by saying that the female must be the "primary antagonist" - but this restriction is already being ignored, and would be very hard to draw the line on. As an example, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn was added, and while that game features female antagonists - notably the vampire Bodhi - its "primary antagonist", Irenicus, is male (as was Bhaal). Chrono Trigger has Queen Zeal as a key antagonist, sure, but there's another male lizard key antagonist, and the primary antagonist is an inhuman alien. Or for another awkward example - Portal & Portal II. The antagonist is an inhuman AI in Portal - an AI with a female voice actor for its lines, sure, but not actually "female". Portal II has a different primary antagonist by section - in Act I, the antagonist is an AI with a female voice at least, but in Act III and the end of the game, the antagonist is an AI with a male voice. Does this qualify? Not by a standard that claims there can only be one "primary antagonist" certainly, even ignoring the robot part. This category is just asking for problems; I could keep nitpicking based off only the small sample of games currently in it, and the category isn't even CLOSE to being 'complete' yet if it is kept. SnowFire (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm the one who proposed this category in the first place because I believe it shows gender representation in games just as much as the female protagonist category does due to the fact most games still have men as primary protagonists and antagonists. I quite clearly stated primary antagonist, key antagonists who are not the primary antagonist would not fit this category and should be removed, if there is more than one primary antagonist of different gender and the female is equal or superior to the male one in terms of things like rank and threat for instance I included The Simpsons: Hit & Run because the primary antagonists are Kang and Kodos equally and Kodos is female (or is supposed to be, not the best example as I just found out it's debated). I did not have AIs in mind when I proposed it but I did not include that in the description because I wasn't sure how I would word something like that as I'm not a highly experienced editor and until today I've had to work on this category alone, also there are plenty of games on the category that I have not played and have trouble verifying (mostly added by "SNAAAAKE!!" the same day as this proposal I believe) so if Snowfire saw a game he does not believe fitted the category I do not see why he did not simply remove it himself rather than trying to remove the whole category? I'd like to end this on a couple of notes: firstly I'm tired and this is the last thing I expected to be doing tonight so I apologize for any errors and that I put a lot of thought into this category and I was rather proud of it so having that all removed would be a shame, if you think it shouldn't exist then fine but please think carefully before making a decision. Madbane54 23:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbane54 (talk • contribs)
I have no doubt that your category was made in good faith. However, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles, members of a category must be verifiable, a core principle of Wikipedia, and that is impossible if the inclusion criteria isn't clear. A category trait must also be "defining" and not incidental. For the characters themselves, this is a defining trait, so Category:Female characters in video games and Category:Male characters in video games are fine. For the games, there is no easy answer, because per above editors will add in games that merely have any female antagonist in it - and/or argue about what "primary" means - and then this category will encompass nearly all video games. That said, I'd certainly have no objection to rewriting & expanding Gender representation in video games#Female antagonists. SnowFire (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think a game fits then you should remove it from the category and if you think the inclusion criteria isn't worded properly then by all means reword it yourself. (PS: if it comes up as unsigned again I don't think it's my fault as I'm using the tildes properly) --Madbane54 08:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbane54 (talk • contribs)
Keep And for your concerns: Actually the article Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn states: "Jon Irenicus and his sister Bodhi are the chief antagonists, with Irenicus the game's main villain." GLaDOS is treated as a "female characer" by Wikipedia and by the media (and SHODAN too). Actually it's all very easy answers. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples are just scratching the surface. Even if you somehow argued me off those games, I could replace them with more games that show there isn't a good standard to be used. (If you insist, Final Fantasy 9, Final Fantasy 10, Suikoden I, & Valkyria Chronicles.) Madbane's own description of the category says "'the primary antagonist, singular, not "one of the antagonists," and specifically calls out side villains (like Bodhi) as not qualifying. My goal isn't to remove those examples from the category, it's to show that attempting to draw this line is impossible, and that "video games featuring a female antagonist somewhere" (aka my list of examples above) is not a useful category. SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except Bodhi is a primary antagonist (one of the 2 "chief antagonists", as they're both described in Wikipedia, and they're equal she just dies first). Random example, Valkyria Chronicles - she's even on the cover (taking half of the entire cover) and is also a symbol of the game otherwise (even googling phrase "Valkyria Chronicles antagonist" will bring you only [1] and [2] because she's the only one that matters, the only one who's prominent, which was of course excepted as they put only her and 2 heroes on the cover). Suikoden - how could anyone even have any objections. This is all so obvious. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you redefine this category to be "has an important female antagonist in the game", all of those games apply. But if Brahne qualifies for FF9, we have a category that is ridiculously overbroad that includes practically any game with villains (e.g. not racing games or the like). Not useful. SnowFire (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And we don't, it's only for Main antagonists aka the final bosses or their bosses if applicable. If you don't agree with some of the additions like how I haven't agreed with some of Snake's ones then stop making me repeat myself and Remove Them! --Madbane54 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would just find myself in an edit war with User:SNAAAAKE!! who has a reputation as being very persistent in his views. I do agree that if this category was changed to be defined as "Video games with a female antagonist as the final boss" then at least there'd be an objective standard, which would fix one of the problems of the category. While such a category definition would be *better*, I'm still not sure this is an "interesting enough" category - are there useful "categorization by final boss" categories to be had? But don't get me wrong, if this category is kept, I'd agree with you that the definition should be locked down to something verifiable, since I'm sure even SNAAAKE can agree that despite Selvaria appearing on the Valkyria Chronicles cover, she is definitely not the final boss no matter what. SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then we hit a game where the final boss is genderless and few fans decided that it's a female (because, for example, voice actor was a female), and so we move on to another flame war. SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note: I don't see an option to list categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Video games, so I'm leaving a comment at WT:VG soliciting participation. SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a trivial cross section of video games and not a defining feature.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: For the purposes of making a list out of it. This is the kind of thing a list is for. That is why there are so many lists and they ignore articles and that. And once the list is made, delete, or else all of the work will have to be done again instead of just checked. ~ R.T.G 09:23, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't even worthy for a list. The gender of any number of antagonists throughout several unrelated video games is not an encyclopedic topic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But Protagonists is? --Madbane54 (talk) 15:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. The player character is more important than the antagonists.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Really? Tell me how many video games can you think of where the main antagonist is a woman without looking at the Category. --Madbane54 (talk) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you name 10 things that aren't Jackie Chan? But in all seriousness, unless the fact video games feature female antagonists is a point of discussion or characterization by other entities, we should not be gathering sets of unrelated video games to fill up categories for the sake of having categories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Video game characters are a topic. Female and antagonist are essential defining characteristics for each one. To find pages on relevant topics defined by those characteristic, that is what it says to keep. ~ R.T.G 21:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But this is a category for the work not the character. The character categories already exist and are fine. Note that Milady de Winter is categorized correctly as a "Literary Villain" (a defining trait), but The Three Musketeers is not in a "Books that include female villains" category (a non-defining and vague characteristic). SnowFire (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's best we ignore RTG as he's proven himself to be incorrect in applying policies and guidelines lately.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 23:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Portal:Contents/Categories says, "Categories (along with other features like cross-references, lists, and infoboxes) help you to find information, even if you don't know what exists or what it's called." The content you are discussing for deletion is an indexing tool. Unless the content is totally wrong to the title, it has that indexing value. I understand the motivations going on. I am pretty stickler for this, i.e., indexing functionality, and it may be one of the most ignored and least understood functions of the site. There's no point addressing me long debate. I do not understand assertions about the work of creating the character. The articles themselves establish notability. The category is simply an indexing tool. A cross referencing tool. The Index Portal is half full of red links. Indexation tools should be taken on an inclusionary basis. That is the state of play of today. ~ R.T.G 11:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No one uses portals and this category has no cross-referencing use. It's arbitrary and unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories should not be used for making lists. If you want to make a list - make it (though again: it's like asking yourself for a flame war). Don't justify an existence of a category with a list. SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial categorization. As noted above, the gender of the player character or a always-there companion (eg Alyx Vance or Clementine (The Walking Dead)) is what is of more interest when people talk about the gender division in video games, but other companions (eg Aerith from FF7) that are just there as part of the party or who are general antagonists are not. (Further, I would say there's a push to try to avoid trying to quantify every work of fiction with an antagonist / protagonist titles since this is not always clear, but that's only a weak reason here. Player-character, however, is a strongly defined term.) --MASEM (t) 22:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well think about this, Category:Female characters in video games has less articles in it than the antagonists category. So someone has done some fresh and needed work, outclassing that which has come before. And you guys are going to delete it because you don't think so. Look at the amount of categories on this article Woody Harrelson. One of them is called Category:Living people. There are almost 675,000 articles in that category. As towards the mission of categorisation, as stated on Wikipedia, that category is thoroughly useless. It's just a tangle of mess. it is on the page as a badge of confirmation, that Woody is still with us, but I got that info at the start of the page, not the bottom of it. But anyway. It would take a major issue to sort that out. ~ R.T.G 22:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Did any of you take the time to note that CfD is Categories for Discussion rather than deletion. Yet articles get Articles for Deletion. Why would that be? is the purpose of a category to be a tag reporting facts like the Living persons category? Or is it for quickly cutting through those 675,000 by looking for, living, vegan, Hollywood film star, comedians that you might not have heard of before? It's worth thinking about... or not.. ~ R.T.G 22:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What the hell is it with you and being a stickler for the rules? CFD is for discussing deletions, as well as other ways to deal with possibly unnecessary categories. It used to be "Categories for deletion" until its role was expanded. Now stop talking about shit you clearly have no clue about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Very few video game characters will be notable enough for their own article, so by extension, any category sorting on video game character articles will be smaller than category sorting on video games directly. --MASEM (t) 20:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Characters from this category should be in Category:Female characters in video games, and that's where it should end. It only opens a doors to the edit wars and has next to no encyclopedic value. Other than that - I agree with pretty much all of the arguments presented by nominator. SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment is anyone here aware that indexing and search methods are subject to copyright, and that making them available here on WP may be a significant issue? An issue we are not only instructed to do in the guidelines, but we are neglecting because we are defining the method as part of another issue, notability. If we cannot hold our own with that, it follows that eventually we will depend on the help of another on their own terms. However, if we can pull it off without issue on our own terms... Well that's the only way we are going to have it on our own terms. Tradition for its sake, wether it is bad or good, is not reasonable. You need reasoning for that. People are saying stuff like, "..you are opening the door for edit wars..." What even does that mean in this context? Categories require the least maintenance of all content. Their purpose is made clear. The bulk of this debate is about the notability of the title, and the notability of the articles that will contain within. There are hundreds of articles to this category. It's not worth discussing for deletion. ~ R.T.G 20:23, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "opening the door for edit wars" means in this context: it means I (or another editor) would remove a game from this category based on my reasoning above, and User:SNAAAAAKE! (or another editor) would add it back, and we'd spend time arguing about what exactly qualifies as a "primary antagonist", a very blurry line. Repeat 1,000 times. Repeat for more categories if categorization by antagonist becomes a trend - games with British primary antagonists, anyone? The same exact thing would happen if a "Literature featuring female antagonists" category was created, by the way. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you shouldn't remove categories from articles based on the idea that you don't like them or think that they aren't notable or core (not in this case anyway) to the subject without any reasoning as to what the core of the subject actually is instead. That is not how the site works. And that statement says to me only to look at your contribs, SnowFire, which I am not by the way, but not saying I wouldn't, but that is definitely not the way to decide categorisation, by deciding what you would edit war about. Is anyone even talking about the other ways in which these articles will be categorised without this particular category? No. See. I don't believe I have taken anyone on bad faith here, and you aren't going to break the site by deleting this one category, but you certainly aren't going to fix it either, and you are breaking it by deleting them all (insofar as their only purpose is to privide navigation, you are definitely deleting all of that when this argument is taken to extension).
  • Here is the facts you are not considering, it doesn't matter how many categories are on an article so long as they are based on defining features of the subject, provided they aren't becoming actually obscure. They aren't supposed to be part of the prose, or part of the information on the page. They are a navigation tool. Cross referencing. Indexing. Those three things. If you are discussing anything else... then you are discussing something else then... Categories are about navigation. Finding things. If that's not what you are discussing, and now it is truly repetitive, well then you are discussing something else, and that is why it is not a democracy, because you can't vote that away. ~ R.T.G 08:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misinterpreted me entirely. I don't mean "I'd remove a game from this category because I think the category should be deleted." I mean that taking the category as it is and trying to good-faith populate it will inherently result in disagreements over who exactly counts as a "primary antagonist," and these are disagreements that can't reasonably be resolved, because who exactly is the antagonist is isn't clear, whether multiple characters might qualify as the primary antagonist isn't clear, etc. It's a bad line. For example, if this category is kept, there should be no debate that StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty should be a part of it; the main antagonist is definitely female in that game (Sarah Kerrigan). However, see the list of games I mentioned above that SNAAAAKE! feels very strongly qualify for this category, and I would consider suspect members who should be removed (if the category was kept at all). Those games are just the tip of the iceberg, which isn't surprising because "categorization by primary antagonist" is asking for trouble, it's not well-defined. Ask yourself why we don't have the seemingly obvious categorization for actual military battles by win/loss; shouldn't the Battle of Saratoga be classified as an "American miltiary victory"? For that one case, sure. For the many other borderline cases where source A says victory, source B says draw, source C hedges with "tactical victory, strategic loss", how do you categorize a battle like that? The answer is: it's a bad fit for Wikipedia categories, don't even try. SnowFire (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are saying that we can't have this category because people in general are sort of dumb and hit each other with their new toys... We already knew that... That people will not be able to make up their minds what it all means... Who are all these confused people!? I think they are short on indexing function, ~ R.T.G 19:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This may work as a list (where the reason for each entry can be explained where necessary), but not as a category. DexDor (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but only include games featuring female primary antagonists, not just games that happen to have even one female adversary. Also note that Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any problem with Category:Video games featuring female protagonists. JIP | Talk 05:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's because protagonists in video games are easily and objectively determined by identifying the character under player control.
  • Delete; the definition of "antagonist" -- even "primary antagonist" -- is just too amorphous for this to ever be a useful category. That and "the big bad is a woman" is not treated in the media or the academic literature as a defining feature of video games. Much has been written about female main characters in video games, but not much about antagonists. Powers T 12:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, "the big bad is a woman" has been treated as an object of academic interest at a large number of video games - simply look at the past programs for the Console-ing Passions conferences. And, besides, video game scholars only began genuinely examining women in VG in the past decade, so I'm not sure I would use their interest as a barometer of notability. There are women big bads, categories index things, so why not index according to women big bads? What harm does it do if there are two big bads? or three? Something can exist in more than one category...Thebrycepeake (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, their interest is our only barometer of notability. It's the only possible objective standard. Powers T 01:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; as an index of games that feature female antagonists, this is invaluable to video game fans and scholars alike -- two necessary audiences of an encyclopedia. As per WP:CAT: "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." Given the very few games that feature female antagonists, and the increased journalistic attention given to representations of women in video games, this cat fulfills all of the notability criteria and function required by WP:CAT. Why someone would nominate it for deletion, and not instead work to improve it, is beyond me. Thebrycepeake (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I laid out my reasons fairly clearly before if you'd like to try understanding why I did it. Anyway, two points: I'm not opposed, and in fact would endorse, someone writing an article or expanding Gender representation in video games, per earlier comments. So any academic research can go there. Second, by the standard that SNAAAAKE! and surely casual readers of the category title would use, the claim that "very few games feature female antagonists" is false. A solid majority of games that feature antagonists at all include some female antagonist, somewhere, making the broad version of this category of limited value. (In fairness, Madbane54 has advocated a narrow reading of the category, which I would as well were this category to be kept, but I don't think that would be an easy inclusion standard to consistently maintain at all.) SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an interesting topic. But there are lots of interesting topics that are inappropriate categories. Categorization by (primary?) antagonist is just not gonna work in fiction; there are too many edge cases that require text, it isn't an uncontroversial on/off switch. What of characters who are only briefly antagonists? Antagonists half the story? Antagonists 90% of the story but not for the last 10%? What if there's a character who is seemingly an antagonist but is actually an ally of the protagonists? etc. SnowFire (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my opinion on each of those: Briefly: No, First half: yes if the antagonist is not working for the 2nd half antagonist, 90%: Yes if considered the person in charge or had been in charge until a betrayal or 3rd party, Secret ally: No. Also if something like the Villains wiki which I've looked at recently can adequately explain what fits in which category (some of them are fairly complex) I'm pretty sure Wikipedia which is far superior can pull it off. And lastly what is so confusing about the word primary? --Madbane54 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The point, which you seem to have missed, is that such complicated inclusion criteria are not well suited for our category system. You could construct a valid list article using those criteria, but trying to maintain a category using them is likely a fool's errand. Powers T 19:46, 14 October 2014 (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:Dennis vehicles

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: discussion aborted/pre-empted. This discussion seems to have been pre-empted by the RFC linked to below. The category can be re-nominated again, if desired, now that the larger discussion has taken place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a simple C2D that was opposed. The company name is Dennis Specialist Vehicles. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Dennis (automobile) or the Dennis Company is a different vehicle manufacturer. That makes the current name ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the main article for a vehicle isn't the name of the manufacturing company. The main article (if there were one), after which the category should be named, would be the article on the brand. Join the discussion mentioned below. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2014 (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:Mourner Users

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not quite sure what this is intended to be, but it doesn't appear to be a useful category. DexDor (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2014 (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:Suicides by firearm in Fresno County, California

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: whole subcategory tree should be deleted if sparsely populated, and likely never well populated. content is fine for suicides in california, county only necessary for a few, even then breaking down by firearm by county not necessary Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2014 (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:Suicides by firearm in Contra Costa County, California

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (category was empty at close) There are more of these but they need to be individually nominated or placed in a group nomination together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Suicides by firearm in California has been divided into subcats by county, with most having 1-3 articles. I think we should either delete most of these categories (except Los Angeles County), or, if the other suicides are enough, rename them Category:Suicides in Contra Costa County, California etc. I will try to nominate the other sub cats this way, unless someone knows how to include more in this CFD Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously requested at the Cali project talk page, comments were:
This is currently subcategorized by county, which in my opinion is a bad scheme because it splits what appears to be only about 100 articles by (at present) over two dozen counties, half of which only have one article. No other state's firearm suicide category is split by county, nor is the county of particular significance. Unless there's some compelling rationale for doing it this way, I think the county subcats should all be nominated for upmerging at CFD. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2014 (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:Lakes of Waldo County, Maine

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is one example of categories of lakes of Maine by county. I surveyed six other states at random and found that landforms were categorized by county while lakes were all in one statewide category. I think that all of the articles on Maine lakes are already in the landforms of X county category as well as a lakes category. I'm proposing that the Maine lakes categories be made consistent with that approach. Before happening upon this page, I already emptied two of the by-county categories yesterday as a trial balloon, to see if any watchers objected. I'm asking here to see what opinion more experienced categorists have of the proposal. The existing by-county categories all have between three and eight pages in them. And if the decision is to delete the by-county categories, could the pages be automatically included in the Lakes of Maine category beforehand, or should I first revise the pages manually? Jbening (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I've put the CfD template on Category:Lakes of Waldo County, Maine, but I'd like to hold off on adding the grouped template on all the by-county category pages until I (hopefully) get some preliminary take here on whether what I'm proposing sounds sensible. Jbening (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This category was deleted out of process. The nominator admitted to emptying the category, as he has with similar categories for Kennebec and Lincoln County, Maine. I do not believe that sorting landforms by county is anymore trivial than sorting people or other categories by county.--TM 09:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for causing the category to be restored, Namiba. I agree that it was deleted prematurely, even though I did my best to explain the situation in my nomination rationale, as you correctly read it. My argument for deleting it and the other by-county categories for lakes, rivers, etc., doesn't hinge on whether those categories are trivial. Rather, I'm arguing for achieving consistency with other states, where the norm appears to be categorizing landforms in general by county, while individual types of landforms are generally categorized state-wide. I don't see any reason why Maine's landforms or counties are different that would justify having a categorization scheme for Maine that is different from those for all of the other states that I sampled. The fact that, in Maine's case, the vast majority of by-county categories of lakes, rivers, etc., contain so few articles does appear to justify the more common approach of categorizing specific types of landforms state-wide, thus producing categories with a more reasonable number of articles. But so far at least, this deletion discussion doesn't seem to be generating enough actual discussion to justify making the change, even if I end up persuading you. So if I get a chance over the weekend, I'm going to initiate another discussion not limited just to Waldo County but for all of the counties, which will hopefully draw in a larger community of discussants. I sent up this trial balloon just for Waldo County to see whether any of the people who have more experience with category organization than I do would raise an argument for why I was totally off-base. That hasn't happened yet, so I'm now up for broadening the discussion. Jbening (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a general discussion of this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Landform categories, large and small. Jbening (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this category and leaving the other similar categories does nothing to address the nominators concerns. I ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination or, if the user does not, for the closing editor to close this discussion as a no-consensus.--TM 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)--TM 23:12, 9 September 2014 (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:Films shot in CinemaScope

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with other categories of this ilk[3], in most cases not a defining feature of the film and little effort being made to ensure film articles verifiably belong to the category. DonIago (talk) 15:58, 2 September 2014 (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:Documentary films about music genres

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is speediable, as the category has a variety of parent categories. However, I believe one of those 3 parents, Category:Films by music genre should be the model. If you take a look at the category contents the vast majority of articles are not films about the "genre," per se, but rather, biographical documentaries about musicians working within those genres. For this reason, I believe a rename is appropriate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2014 (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:Alleged war profiteers

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A potential minefield of BLP violations. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator is spamming over several pages. I'm trying to clean it up. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 15:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they are not spamming, which would be bad enough (as in spamming for solitiations for comment, etc). they are adding BLP violations by adding this category to articles without sources indicating it. they have done no edits other than this, and only recently. Wordslab is a SPA, a POV pusher, and should be immediately topic banned from all politics and biography articles, if not permanently banned outright. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I was thinking of creating an article on a list of war profiteers but then I thought that might be unencyclopedic. This category would be the best alternative. This is a topic widely discussed on social media, hence it seems to be in line with wikipedia's goals. Plus, some entries I have tagged appear to largely revolve around this topic, hence on these articles it seems entirely appropriate; particularly more relevant than some other trivial categories that exist on these pages. Wordslabt (talk) 15:09, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't usually categorize on "alleged" things, especially something as vague as war profiteers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as too problematic, and highly subjective. Is Apple computer a war profiteer if they are selling iphones at a profit to people on both sides in Syria? all you would need is one highly PC blog saying so, and have that referenced in the article. not every topic discussed widely on social media gets a category on Wikipedia. I would not recommend a list, either, as it would be an instant target for violating BLP, without providing much useful information. if someone, or something, has these allegations against them, just put it in the article if notable. Other stuff exists is also not an argument for keeping. categories need to have easily discernable inclusion criteria. PS we dont even have Category:War profiteers, we do have Category:Arms traders and Category:People convicted of arms trafficking, these are much more definable. also, the 2 in this category, one is included in a documentary called war profiteers, which is definitely not an indictment from some NGO, and the other is accused by a political enemy of his of profiting from the war. EVERY ARMS COMPANY profits from war. war profiteering is a specific type of crime, not just "they benefited from it" it usually refers to illegally boosting prices to take advantage of wartime shortages, in violation of the usual laws in place during war. neither of these people is accused of that, they are accused of making money off a war unethically, not illegally. to a christian pacifist anarchist, even making a button for a military jacket is war profiteering if sold at a profit.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as category created by editor with nothing but bad faith edits and POV pushing, and BLP violations.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are BLP violations, then by all means issue talk page warnings. I do see one message from Mercurywoodrose. Blocking editors for defamatory content or unsupported controversial edits can be a fairly straightforward process -- especially if the requisite warnings have been issued. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 2 September 2014 (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:People executed by the Timurid dynasty

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category, there is only one person it, namely a local Timurid ruler in Samarkand who had been executed by his successor. This one person is already in Category:Timurid monarchs as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2014 (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:Khorasan under the Samanid Empire

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains one childcategory, so it's a redundant categorization layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_2&oldid=1146511944"