January 26
Category:Aviation accidents and incidents in Ibiza
Category:Action heroes
Category:MMORPGs 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: Merge and delete per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per the June 2016 CfD for role-playing video games by period, the January 2017 CfD for visual novels by period, and the WikiProject Video games discussion, the current consensus is that "video games by genre by year" is overcategorization.--IDVtalk 15:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Categories by genre and decade; and do that as well with the categories already deleted (RPGs and visual novels). If I understand it right, those categories were deleted because there's not much difference between a game which came out in 1995 or 1996; however, there is a large difference between games that came out in 1996 and 2016. A cross-categorization by decade would allow us to find games in the same genre from the same period, with similar technological and gameplay styles. Grouping by decade (or maybe even every 5 years) would allow us to provide structure and handle the growth of the insanely large Category:Role-playing video games Diego (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as nominated per precedent. This appears to be the last breakdown of overcategorized game genres by year. czar 18:41, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Listen: "by year" is the most important wikipedia category for video games. It's only reason I come here.I'm kind of a big deal and you should listen to me! Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8780:1E94:D4E3:291C:E1DF:2869 (talk) 11:26, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as nominated - The basic principle here has already been thoroughly discussed in the above mentioned CfDs, but categories which combine multiple unrelated characteristics results in articles falling into an excessive number of categories, multiplies the amount of category upkeep required, and makes the category system many times more complicated without in any way adding to its usefulness.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:30, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge as nominated per arguments raised at similar CFD. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:27, 3 February 2017 (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:Pornographic music videos
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Not WP:DEFINING. —swpbT 14:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as there's only 2 entries, Regardless of that tho it's still a pointless category. –Davey2010Talk 16:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Too ambiguous a category. The term "pornographic" is subjective enough that whether or not certain articles fall into this category would inevitably result in edit wars which can never be definitively resolved. "Pornographic" is also a derogative term to 99.9% of the population, which means that editors who like an article's subject are unlikely to allow it to remain under this category.--Martin IIIa (talk) 14:43, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Aside from the above sound arguments, these appear to be porn videos with musical segments, not what are generally termed music videos. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Ambiguous — the two entries here are 80-100 minute films which mix porn and music, not five-minute music videos per se — and subjective — should this also include "Justify My Love"? "Dis-moi, dis-moi"? That new Jonathan Roy video in which you actually see the singer's bare butt? Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2017 (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:Jek Grom
- 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: administrative close. Category has already been deleted per WP:G2. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Useless to the encyclopedia. —swpbT 14:20, 26 January 2017 (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:1570 establishments in Great Britain
Category:Law firms established in 1570
- 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 consensus for a general upmerge of law firms established before 1800, but no action can be taken here because the other categories involved have been neither listed nor tagged.
@Swpb, Richhoncho, Marcocapelle, and Peterkingiron: feel free to open a new nomination for a wider merge, without delay. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Overly-specific; will never become populated. —swpbT 14:16, 26 January 2017 (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.