November 29
Category:Privateer Press game factions
- 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. MER-C 19:46, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The two members of this category have been redirects for the past 7 years. They both failed notability criteria, so a specific category for them isn't needed. The1337gamer (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2015 (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:Super Monkey Ball 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: Upmerged and deleted Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Don't need a subcategory for the series' games here as the series category (Category:Super Monkey Ball) only has one member itself, the series article. The1337gamer (talk) 22:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not anymore. Added relevent parent categories. --The1337gamer (talk) 06:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge because the games category is well-populated. Which practically means, delete the parent - the one article of the parent category is already in the header of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nominators reasoning. There's no point in having 2 categories for the same thing. Anarchyte 09:26, 20 January 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:Pharaoh and Cleopatra
- 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. MER-C 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has a single a member, the subject of the category. The1337gamer (talk) 20:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. User:Kjell Knudde, 10:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As the original creator of the category, it is no longer needed since the merge of Cleopatra (computer game) and Pharaoh (computer game), and as such, I Support its deletion. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:44, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Even if the two computer games still had distinct articles that would not be enough to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- One member categories are a waste of space. The main article looks to be a different one, but actually redirects to the one article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 5 December 2015 (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:Lists of films by common content
- 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: withdrawn. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:04, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Created back in 2007 -- and kept twice at Cfds that year. This category was followed a year later by the proposed target for the merge, Category:Lists of films by topic. There has never -- far as I can tell -- been a discussion about merging the two, or why we need both. We have an extensive category structure for all manner of things by "topic." We do not, far as I can tell, have a larger "common content" category structure, and probably for good reason. I work quite often in the films area and I really can't tell from the category description why a List should go in one and not the other, and it seems to me that merging to the more defined "topic" might have the added benefit of discouraging people from creating trivial, indiscriminate lists of just about anything they see in films, which as we know, is a problem. For example see the deleted List of films with boats, where this very category was cited as a reason to keep. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:55, 29 November 2015 (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:History of esports
- 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: Upmerged to category:eSports Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has no members, there are no History of eSports articles. Its only subcategory Category:Years in esports is already contained in its parent category Category:Esports making it completely redundant currently. The1337gamer (talk) 19:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably these histories of sports categories fall under the exception rule of WP:SMALLCAT: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Every other category at Category:History of sports by sport has a member though, this one doesn't. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for Now The Smallcat exception usually applies to the smaller subcategories, not the empty parent category. No objection to recreating though when some content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to parent. However, should the spelling not be e-sports? I would also suggest that all the categories for years in esports up to 2005 (which currently have one member and no main article) should also be merged to their parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - there's no other options for this category; no reason to merge, rename, etc. Anarchyte 09:27, 20 January 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:Guitar Hero people
- 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: Upmerged to Category:Guitar Hero Category:Guitar Hero players left as is due to lack of discussion. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has a single member. Guitar Hero is also not a company, it is brand/video game franchise so it should not fall under Category:People by company. This is the only instance I've seen of a person being categorised by a video game franchise. The1337gamer (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The current category structure serves to link a notable player to a businessman who was involved with the company that made the game. This connects unlike articles for no good reason.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge this and its subcategory up to Category:Guitar Hero. It may be aberrant to have the people in a category for a video game but there is a musician there already. "One franchise, one category". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support alternative to merge the category and its subcategory, per Peterkingiron. I've added a CfD template to the subcategory just now, so this discussion shouldn't be closed for another week. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:55, 11 December 2015 (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:Grand Theft Auto (video game)
- 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) 23:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these categories has either one or two members with no potential growth. It would be more appropriate to categorise by the parent series category rather than individual games. The1337gamer (talk) 18:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support -- My slogan for this is "one franchise: one category". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge. Overcategorized, very unlikely to expand significantly. If anything, navigation is hindered here rather than improved. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:22, 10 December 2015 (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 with dissociative identity disorder
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: I have emptied this category and moved all but one entry to Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder. This title is more specific and is less likely to be prone to editors "assigning" persons to dissociative identity disorder who have not had definitive diagnoses. Being diagnosed with the condition is also a lot more clear-cut than having the condition.
- This distinction is important in the case of the article Shirley Ardell Mason. While Mason was definitely diagnosed with DID, this diagnosis is controversial (see discussion in article). Using this wording for the category name avoids Wikipedia having to take POVs on whether such diagnoses are correct. LukeSurl t c 16:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep By the same argument there is a place for a category of pages about people with DID: those who have published books and given interviews on TV. That they have DID is not disputed. 67.0.98.166 (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#People_with_VS_People_diagnosed_with. 67.0.98.166 (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ozzie10aaaa. Sorry, your "oppose" !vote is unclear to me. Are you in favor of keeping or deleting Category:People with dissociative identity disorder? --LukeSurl t c 17:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- thanks for pinging,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This category is empty right now but seems to be duplicating Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder. Liz Read! Talk! 15:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- You're right, I didn't read this nomination carefully enough. My apologies. Usually categories aren't emptied before these discussions occur. Liz Read! Talk! 14:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; also I am not sure that the "diagnosed with" is supportable either by WP:NONDEFINING, when you think of Herschel Walker this is what comes to mind? Oh, and by the way he was a football player I gather. Others wrote books, and their "diagnosis" is not documented. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete There are people who even question that DID actually exits. I had a pshycology professor at Wayne State University who was among those people who questioned it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:28, 5 December 2015 (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:Southern Alps
- 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) 13:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This matches the main article name and disambiguates it from Category:Southern Alps (Europe) which is being developed. Bermicourt (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Await RM result. There is a current RM discussion proposing that the article be moved back to Southern Alps. If the RM closes without change, then the rename of the category could be made speedily. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Category also has not been tagged with Template:Cfr. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]- Support regardless of the article name, the category is way too ambiguous to exist as is, since categories are not articles, and cleaning up misfiled articles is not a cheap single event action, but a repetitive constant patrol. Hatnotes on categories are not read by categorization tools, and do not appear to editors who slap categories onto articles when editing. There is no automated tool that can actually understand differences in categorization without IBM Watson level AI, which we do not code for onto our own private computers or run on the toolservers. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There is absolutely zero history of categorization problems with this particular category. Proper categorization is not as difficult or as haphazardly applied as you make it sound. In my experience, having a main article and a category name that are different causes far more confusion and categorization problems than having a category name that matches the main article but is not 100 percent unambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article was moved back to Southern Alps. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The move has been challenged. Wait out. --Bermicourt (talk) 22:03, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine—but you know, nothing's going to change w.r.t. the category name unless the category gets tagged with the template. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support – the name is ambiguous which is OK for an article name but not for a category name (cf hundreds of examples, Birmingham being the most notorious). In particular there is Category:Southern Alps (Europe). To most of the world all the Alps are in Europe. Oculi (talk) 08:33, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The article is at Southern Alps and is not going anywhere, it appears. It's far more confusing to have a category that doesn't have the same name as its main article than it is to have a category name that is not 100% unambiguous. Oculi cites "hundreds of examples", but there are other hundreds of examples that go the other way—Category:Paris, Category:London, Category:Swansea ... As noted above, there is no history of application confusion with this category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. The category and main article need to be the same. Mattlore (talk) 05:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Await other RM. However the RM comes out for Southern Alps, this category should have the same name. Please wait for the other RM to close. —hike395 (talk) 06:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural oppose per Hike. We have no business moving this category if the article stays put, and if the article gets moved, we can always do a speedy move. Nyttend (talk) 03:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Follow the parent article, which is currently at Southern Alps. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural oppose—forum shopping Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Second move proposal has been closed as "no move", so the article is at Southern Alps. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose since the article is staying at Southern Alps. Nurg (talk) 10:42, 18 December 2015 (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:Latter-day Saints portal
- 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: Category:Latter-day Saints portal deleted. pages were moved to Category:LDS Church portal. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: These categories appear to be for the same thing. DexDor (talk) 12:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC) nom corrected DexDor (talk) 15:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose: This categories are not for the same thing. The Category:Latter day Saints portal does not even exist. Please let everything stay as it is. The Category:Latter-day Saints portal is good and should not be merged.--Broter (talk) 14:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The Category:Latter day Saints portal does not even exist. Let everything stay in the current category and do not create a new one. Everyhing is allright with the current category.--Broter (talk) 14:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominated category is specifically for the LDS Church, while the target is presumably with a broader scope. We could rename it to Category:LDS Church portal to make the distinction clearer. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:29, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd be happy with that. DexDor (talk) 15:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I still oppose because I think that the renaming is unecessary work. It is very much work to do und is very complicated to rename so many subjects.--Broter (talk) 16:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation:Category:Latter-day Saints portal is for the Portal:LDS Church, while Category:Latter Day Saints portal is for the Portal:Latter Day Saints. The first category is for a portal about the LDS Church specifically why the second category is for a portal about all Latter Day Saints Movement Churches. Please let everything stay as it is. It is very much work and very complicated to rename the category Category:Latter-day Saints portal and all objects which are in it!--Broter (talk) 16:59, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems we agree on the fact that the nominated category is for the LDS church and the renaming will be automated by the closing administrator, so it's not much work at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:LDS Church portal per Marcocapelle for clarity and because of Portal:LDS Church. The distinction between "Latter Day Saints" and "Latter-day Saints" is far too subtle and would probably be completely lost on 99.99% of readers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I changed my opinion and now support it to rename Category:Latter-day Saints portal into Category:LDS Church portal, if the work is done by the closing administrator in a good and comprehensive way.--Broter (talk) 14:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge or Reverse Merge This should be one; I'll defer to others on the most desirable target name. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Please do not merge the categories, this would only increase the confusion. Instead rename Category:Latter-day Saints portal into Category:LDS Church portal. The category Category:Latter Day Saints portal should stay as it is.--Broter (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I urge every administator to close the discussion and rename Category:Latter-day Saints portal into Category:LDS Church portal!--Broter (talk) 17:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch the message below and delete the Category:Latter-day Saints portal!--Broter (talk) 10:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Important message[edit]
I have now created the Category:LDS Church portal myself and have moved all portal objects in this category. The Category:Latter-day Saints portal is now empty and should be deleted. I was so tired to wait. I did it now myself. Please be kind to me. I made the work for you.--Broter (talk) 20:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh .... maybe for the future you could put a premium on being patient and letting the formal process carry itself out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2015 (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:Survey of Hindu organisations
- 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 09:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Survey of Hindu organisations to Category:Hindu movements and organisations
- Nominator's rationale: I'm not clear at all what this is meant to be, but it appears to be an attempt to categorize a variety of Hindu organisations, thus providing a category which is a "survey" or selection of Hindu organisations. If this is indeed what it is, it can just be upmerged to the parent category Category:Hindu movements and organisations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, there is nothing special about these organizations that merits a separate subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 29 November 2015 (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.