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:Kept. Timrollpickering 18:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see how this represents a defining characteristic of these films. These films are what they are with or without a video game adaptation. It would be more appropriate to categorize the games as Category:Video games adapted from films (I see that this category does exist at Category:Video games based on films) StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: We have categories for various other adaptations of films. There's no reason to single out video games. There is also enough general interest in video game adaptations, so it only makes sense to categorize all films which were deemed relevant enough to inspire a video game adaptation. - User:Kjell Knudde, 18:51 12 June 2018 (UTC).
keep Tracing films significant enough to receive adaptations seems reasonable enough. Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Usually I'm very much against over categorization, but "films adapted into video games" is a comprehensible and clearly defined characteristic. These are films that have been made into a video game as well. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A well-defined category is far different than a "defining characteristic" of the topic of the articles. None of these films are defined by there being video games based upon them. WP:CATDEF. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 14:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support, nominator has a good point that being adapted is primarily a characteristic of the adaptation and not of the original. But the category may better be nominated together with its siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2018 (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:procedural close. Category has been deleted already. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Meaningless 1-article category Le Deluge (talk) 14:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
May be eligible for speedy deletion per G1 or G3: "Chocolate Usage is when something uses chocolate. Y'all are dumb if you don't know what uses chocolate". Other cateogries in the Category:Chocolate tree can serve the same purpose. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:05, 13 June 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Following a recent CFD this category contains just a subcat for Australia. For info, of the 6 edits to the category page 5 are by "problem" editors (Nono64/NotWith, Look2See1 and R567). DexDor(talk) 11:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Category:Annelids by location contains in all a handful of articles and should all be upmerged back to Annelids. I am delighted to see that user:Caftaric has been blocked (for being R567, not to mention NotWith). Oculi (talk) 23:19, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oculi, there's been a lot of socks creating/editing these categories. I've put some notes here - is there evidence directly linking NotWith and Caftaric? DexDor(talk) 10:29, 16 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is pages edited by both NotWith and Caftaric (many of these are obscure and often edited by no-one else other than the other socks). They edit the same pages, leave rudimentary edit summaries (eg 'clean up'), never reply or comment at cfd ... Oculi (talk) 11:13, 16 June 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Per renaming of the main article to Soulcalibur. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:38, 12 June 2018 (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.
