< October 5 October 7 >

October 6

Category:Native American

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 to Category:Native American topics. Kbdank71 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Native American → Category:Native Americans

Change from singular to plural. The singular form "Native American" refers either to one individual or is an adjective encompassing all things related to Native Americans. Either meaning is poorly defined. — CharlotteWebb 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Definitely not [eligible for Speedy renaming] -- there's a reason the target name already has a category redirect. (Check out the CFD that yielded the current set-up for more info on this.) Cgingold (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yes, I thought this stirred dim memories. I started a keeper there, but was pursuaded on the rename, I think after others fell in behind it. Probably a mistake. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2008 (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 that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

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, though problematic application in the future of the kind Postdlf identifies may be a good reason for a reappraisal of the use of a category for this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Looks to be a recreation of the previously deleted category Companies in Chapter 11, Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (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:Sony Pictures

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. Valid rationale. No opposing arguments. If this isn't a speedy renaming criterion (article redirects to full name) then it should be. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Though now I've looked a bit closer, I see the rename destination already exists as a subcategory of the nominated category. Um. Rejigging the categories to make "Pictures" a subcat of "Entertainment", and will then request an upmerge. If anyone objects, feel free to relist for further discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sony Pictures to Category:Sony Pictures Entertainment
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article Sony Pictures Entertainment. -choster (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (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:Military occupations

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. Relisting did not seem to find a solution. At this point taking the discussion to the wiki project or another talk page to try and figure this out is the best alternative. If a solution surfaces there, or someone figures out the right solution, then feel free to renominate. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Military occupations rename to Category:Military service occupations
Nominator's rationale: Requested to avoid further confusion with Category:Military occupation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Navies are generally regarded as part of (a branch of) the military, so this would be redundant. Cgingold (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only in the US I think - in the the UK "military" does not cover naval in most contexts. Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm -- I think perhaps the UK is an exception in that regard? But, in any event, they're all categorized under Category:Military branches -- including the UK. Cgingold (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it! In the UK, and I expect Australia etc, "armed forces" is the umbrella term. If that is comprehensible to americans, it would be preferable here. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "armed forces" is a widely used term -- are you suggesting Category:Armed forces occupations? (Let me give that some thought.) Cgingold (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No doubt you remember that the use of "armed forces" vs "military" for use in categories has been considered before and in wider contexts and applications. It seems to me that having Category:Naval occupations as a sub-category in the Military organisations would solve all that since the category would be clearly visible and distinguished from the civilian Maritime category--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 04:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. Do you have a link? Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have a look through the Military History Project Archived talk--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod, I suggest you withdraw your rename proposal unless you want to experience a sampling of aerial precision guidance weapons deliver occupation ;). Seriously though, I would suggest that within the Military service occupations there needs to be sub-categories for the Services specific occupations as their specific categories. I have just added Marine occupations, and that includes sailor. I have just added the maritime and underwater occupations, and created military aviation occupations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Marine occupations obviously includes civilian ones - why on earth avoid the obvious term "naval"?? Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added it as an expedient. In reality you are right, and the "marine" needs to be replaced with Naval occupations that would include the "underwater" as Submarine occupations. Its a start though since sailor was not even an article linked to military occupations!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me this is an unwarranted approach for the purpose of categorising naval subjects that have military relationships regardless of the combat service it relates to. Quite obviously Romans had no ability to include the Air Force into their vocabulary, and yet strike aircraft are accepted as being "military" aircraft--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, but unfortunately professions are for professionals and the military also has a lot of trades. In any case, when does one become a professional infantryman?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not positive, but I believe that that (or something similar) is a profession, and is listed as such in the military. I'd welcome clarification on this. - jc37 09:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Only officers and possibly career NCOs are considered military professionals--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree -- only certain occupations are properly referred to as "professions", so that's a non-starter. Cgingold (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that would mean expanding an article that is subject specific or renaming the current article Military Occupational Specialty (USA)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 07:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see why either would be necessary, especially since that article would not be called upon to serve as the "main article" for the category, given that it IS specific to the US. Cgingold (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be incline to rename the otehr cat Category:Military occupation -> Category:Ocupations by the military --Salix (talk): 06:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlotteWebb
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.

South Africa Prisoners

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. Kbdank71 15:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Prisoners and detainees of South Africa and Category:South African prisoners and detainees
Nominator's rationale: Having two different categories and subcategories, one for people from South Africa and one more general seems cross over categorization. I suggest they be merged. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:34, 6 October 2008 (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:Non-violent first-person shooters

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. I must commend the efforts made by those who sought a compromise rename, but as has been pointed out, the suggested renames create many of the same problems that already exist under the current name. This is also a great example of a debate between (1) those who perhaps see categories as things whose meaning should be unambiguous, self-evident, clear on their face, or at least self-explanatory; and (2) those who perhaps see categories as things whose meaning can be crafted precisely and implemented carefully with the use of supporting sources to justify inclusion of articles in them. To quote the oft-referenced sentences from WP:CLN: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." In this case, it's going to be virtually impossible for an article to be "self-evidently" (i.e., without specific sources) or "uncontroversially" (i.e., without someone disagreeing) assigned to the category by the average WP editor. I think this discussion demonstrates that clearly, if nothing else. One editor described this as "mushiness", which captures the concept nicely. Yes, as was pointed out repeatedly (to the point of it becoming trite)—we can use sources to settle the disputes about whether or not articles belong in the category—but having a source somewhere out there in the universe does not make the game's violence or non-violence or or mildness or whatever "self-evident". On the other hand, WP:CLN goes on to point out that "Lists can be embellished with annotations .... Lists can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles." Since appropriate sourcing seems to be the only way out of the mess of determining what is "violence" or "mild violence", etc., it seems a list will best help us implement the use of "non-violent" (or something similar) as the standard for inclusion. (I'm assuming here that since one editor has started a list, there is no need to keep the category from deletion until a list is made. But if required, I can assist in locating the previous contents of the category for the purpose of creating a list.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Non-violent first-person shooters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Nominating this category based upon its ambiguity and the fact that whether a video game is violent is subjective, and because it was previously deleted per this CFD less than 3 months ago and doesn't appear to have gone through DRV prior to being recreated. See also Talk:Portal_(video_game)#Non-violent. –xeno (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Just to be clear, I don't necessarily think this category needs to be deleted per se, but it definitely needs refining and some agreement on what kind of titles will be included. I brought it here because it was recreated without a DRV. My opinion is that its current name would preclude games that include violent deaths (i.e. Portal (video game)), even if the main character is essentially non-violent. –xeno (talk) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created this category to give substance to the HURL article, which is almost entirely my work (one person whom I dont know came and changed "Adventure Game Construction Kit" into ACK3D). I was afraid of the article getting deleted. Now, I'm not really afraid of that, because as I understand it now, all that I need to do to prove a video game's notability is to provide a link to a site where it can be downloaded such that that site is neither mine nor the programmers'. And I have done that. That isn't to say that I no longer about this category, but only that I won't be terribly upset if it does get deleted. That, and the fact that I'm not sure I'm eligible to vote on this anyway, is why I am putting in "Comment" for my vote. If I had to take a side, though, I would favor keeping it. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to split hairs, one of the games that I put in this category the first time wouldn't make it as nonviolent. Super Noah's Ark 3D has animals that can kill you; in fact, if I'm not mistaken, all of them can. Your job is to pacify them by throwing food at them (this is why it qualifies as an FPS) before they tear you apart. I've heard that if you run out of food the game allows you to fight back (rather ineffectively, since you dont get any weapons) but haven't had a chance to play the game recently to verify this. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using the ESRB ratings is arbitrary, as it covers only North America and to the best of my knowledge video games are played on other continents. It also gives undue weight to this particular rating over others in violation of WP:NPOV. Note that we do not appear to have, for example, categories based on the motion picture rating system of any country. Otto4711 (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to sound like a broken record, but what about using verifiability as an inclusion criterion just as in all other categories (see Category guideline #7)? I think this category simply needs a main article, but otherwise to quote from guideline #1, "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles." That is exactly what this category is designed to do. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think that an ESRB ranking is arbitrary, although you might have made a far more valid point that it is not all-inclusive. Other, comparable rating schemes exist in other countries and should be added to the inclusion criteria, as should references from game reviews and other articles in reliable sources. Alansohn (talk)
  • I didn't say that the ESRB rating system itself is arbitrary (although, since it's humans making the rating decision, I expect it is). I said that selecting the ESRB as the standard for inclusion is arbitrary. Selecting any rating system or even multiple rating systems is arbitrary because it requires editors to decide which ratings systems to use. Additionally, looking at the definitions of the various ESRB ratings, none of them use the phrase "non-violent". A "C" rating makes no mention of violence whatsoever, merely that the game contains no material that parents or educators would deem "inappropriate" (which is a subjective decision so there's that arbitrariness problem again). An "E" rating means the game may contain "minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence." Is a game that includes "minimal" violence "non-violent"? How do editors decide that without resorting to OR or POV? And what if we do select a few different ratings systems and they give the games conflicting ratings? Do we give one precedence over another, in violation of NPOV? Do we categorize them as both "violent" and "non-violent" which seems more than a little absurd? Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no [[Category:Violent first-person shooters]] so this is a moot point. You have asked "How do editors decide that without resorting to OR or POV?" See Category guideline #7. If you can reliably source your designation then it is valid. This is the criteria I would propose to allow inclusion. Does this sound reasonable to you? -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You left out the critical first question. I asked, Is a game that includes "minimal" violence "non-violent"? How do editors decide that without resorting to OR or POV?. Editors can certainly source the rating that a game has been given by one ratings system or another but that's not the same as reliably sourcing that the game is "non-violent." Otto4711 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • A game that includes "minimal" violence would be tagged "non-violent" if reliable sources indicate that it is. Using the "reliable sources/verifiability" standard is quite simply how Wikipedia works. There are often disagreements in external sources, but using them does not imply OR or POV (unless you selectively filter). I guess what you're really asking is what can be done if two sources directly disagree. In that case, I believe the standard practice is to present both sides unless one side is clearly fringe. This is not an unsurmountable task. The Category guidelines suggest that WP:V defeats WP:NPOV and I suggest that we use the same standard. How can this possibly be unacceptable? -Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • And if we have conflicting sources? Suppose Reviewer A thinks that the game "Pie Fight" is violent because the goal is to hit creatures in the face with pies, while Reviewer B thinks that "Pie Fight" is non-violent because, who's ever been hurt by a pie? Do we categorize "Pie Fight" as a non-violent game? Whether we do or we don't, either decision requires editors to choose between two equally reliable sources, which violates NPOV. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, to follow that up, here are two sources sources that confirm at least some amount of violence in Portal. (Yes, they actually use the word "violence" rather than "killing" which apparently (?) doesn't necessarily involve violence). –xeno (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When reliable sources conflict, the answer is to present both sides and not only one or neither. In this case, I suppose that would mean categorizing the game as both violent and non-violent. As the intent of the category is to provide ease of browsing to those interested in the topic of non-violent FPSes in the normally violent FPS supergenre, it is clear that "Pie Fight" would have to be categorized as a non-violent FPS to meet the intent of the category. As I doubt there is any interest in a category for violent games, the seeming conflict is resolved. Does this mean the category is more heavily weighted toward inclusionism? Yes. However by mandating a reliable source standard for inclusions, arbitrariness vanishes. -Thibbs (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I renew my objections to the use of the phrase "non-violent" whether in a list or a category because it has no objective definition, either in the context of gaming or outside of that context (some adherents of non-violence reserve the right to defend themselves or others; other adherents do not). Locating other games can be solved by adding a "see also" link to the list. As far as lists being bogged down with unsourced or non-notable entries, that's an editing issue. I fail to see how adding a catmore tag and writing an article on NVFPSes will address the sourcing issue for items included in the category, unless you include a reference for each game listed as "non-violent," in which case you already have a sourced list so why have the category? And your draft article reads more like it should be called Violence in video games as it is mostly about that general topic and includes next to nothing about NVFPSes or other "non-violent" games. Otto4711 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • This reasoning is clearly deficient considering that it completely neglects the standard criterion for inclusion of verifiability by citation to reliable sources. By the argument advanced here, Category:Violent incidents in the United States should also be rejected as impossibly ambiguous. In fact, membership in the "Violent incidents" category is defined just as this should be, by reliable sources presented in the articles themselves as well as in the main article(s) given in ((catmore)) tags. The suggestion of using a "See also" tag is rather awkward as there are at least 18 members of the category and more probably exist. Sure, a list could be used, but it is clearly an inferior option as my prior post has demonstrated in detail. -Thibbs (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Compromise: "Mild or no violence"[edit]
  • As has been noted already, with no objective definition of "mild" this is just as prone to OR and interpretation as "non-violent". Otto4711 (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I said there would have to be a valid 3rd party source. A game rating from the ESRB (or a similar, widely recognized rating board) or a well-known game review publication specifically noting a game's minimal violence ought to be sufficient to satisfy verifyability. --Icarus (Hi!) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Icarus says, reliable 3rd party sources shatter the argument of objective ambiguity. There are a number of other "Category:Violent X" articles on Wikipedia that derive their existence from use of the verifiability using reliable sources inclusion criterion. The argument that violence is indefinable is incorrect. -Thibbs (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I oppose the suggested compromise as being every bit as subjective as the existing category name. Otto4711 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2008 (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:Stub-Class Indian music articles of unknown-importance

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, empty; not populated by the template as stated in the category header. Kbdank71 15:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Stub-Class Indian music articles of unknown-importance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Capital U in Unknown created (instead of speedy rename). This is related to the Wikipedia India project template, where all articles with Stub class and Unknown importance are already tagged to the category with capital U in the name. VasuVR (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (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:Jewish organizations based in Israel

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. Category has begun to be populated, and as IZAK points out, "organizations based in Israel" is somewhat broader than "Jewish organizations based in Israel". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jewish organizations based in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category is currently empty, having been a parent category to Category:Organizations based in Israel until today. In fact, since Category:Jewish organizations is used for organizations of ethnic Jews, both religious and not, this category would contain virtually all of Category:Organizations based in Israel if used properly. Therefore this would not seem to be a useful distinction. Eliyak T·C 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And Category:Jewish organizations too. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (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:National/Local Campsites of The Scout Association

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 to Category:Campsites of The Scout Association. Kbdank71 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:National/Local Campsites of The Scout Association to Category:National and local campsites of The Scout Association
Nominator's rationale: Rename. capitalization. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
cool by me so long as the caps are correct. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2008 (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:Psychological anime and manga

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) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Psychological anime and manga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I feel this categorization is based on personal feelings and original research. A query to the creator as to what the criteria might be was ignored. Almost all anime and manga has some psychological aspects to it, by very little of it has psychology as its defining aspect, and deciding for ourselves which qualify and which don't does not seem appropriate.

Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's rationale: First off, the page was created to pick anime/manga that are separate from others of it's kind. Yes, almost all anime have some kind of "psychological" aspect to it, but what I intended was for certain ones to reflect hugely based upon the morals of the theme, characters' point-of-view, and goals. The ones I specifically picked, have a twist, or notion that creates non-stereotypical advancement in them. While certain series are indeed psychological, that only refers to the protagonists mind alone, and never really consider any outside influence. To summarize: My category associates with all characters' psyches, adding up to the big climax(literally being the case, EX:Neon Genesis Evangelion), in contrast to Beeblebrox's assumption that by simply picking a few that have no particular reason to call it "psychological", I have deemed all other anime/manga "un-psychological". To remedy this predicament, I will modify the page to explain what I meant. Thank you.Otaking07(talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That seems awfully subjective. Genres, I think, should be clear-cut and not open to interpretation.--Nohansen (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. There are a few anime that come to mind that would be "psychological" but not "horror", so this would possibly be a useful category after it has been defined properly. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2008 (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.
More