Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 9 October 11 >

October 10[edit]

Category:Doomtree (band) albums[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. – Fayenatic London 23:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Doomtree (band) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Steve Zing is only one element of this rock band (now actually Marra's Drug) that we don't have an article for. No other albums exist. The proposed name also doesn't help distinguish from Doomtree. This category is serving no navigational purpose with its one article. SFB 21:53, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename. The album was released by the band named Doomtree. If Steve Zing had a bunch of other albums released in his name, I would be in favour of merging this single one to them, but I don't think Zing has any solo albums. As for the one-article nature of the category, this is part of Category:Albums by artist, which explicitly states that "all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded". It thus is one of the "part of an overall scheme" exceptions to WP:SMALLCAT. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the album is by Doomtree, not Steve Zing. If the album is not notable then afd is the route to take, not cfd. (Sleeve.) 89.242.141.228 (talk) 17:01, 17 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:Grand Theft Auto clones[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. I came to this discussion knowing close to nothing about this subject area. After reading the arguments, I find it difficult to say that this is not a somewhat contentious and derogatory appellation. As demonstrated by the discussion, it is thus an inherently subjective term—maybe not necessarily under a literal reading of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, but certainly under the everyday meaning of that word—and because of its nature, it should not be a term used for categorization of video games. That said, users seem generally open to listing the "alleged clones" in Grand Theft Auto clone or identifying them as such in other article text, and this should be allowed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Highly debatable criteria. So any open world third person game set in any remotely urban environment is a clone of GTA? Just Cause 2? JC2 is more akin to Far Cry 3 than to GTA. Also, Simpsons Hit & Run? Really? uKER (talk) 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a non-neutral category since it makes major claims about developmental influence in the creative arts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I know it sounds like a silly example to someone who hasn't played it, but The Simpsons: Hit & Run is the archetypal GTA clone. There's even been a lawsuit based on it. Tezero (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is clearly POV and OR. No way this could be turn into a legitimate category. JDDJS (talk) 03:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: as the discussion has not acknowledged the existence of the lead article Grand Theft Auto clone. Note: the category is currently being re-populated.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 16:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question The only thing in this category as of right now is Category:Yakuza (series). What was in the category before?RevelationDirect (talk) 21:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my talk page for a link to the diffs. user:bridies raised objections to the close, and agreed to repopulate it. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As I've said, the above are WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. The cat is not OR: a sampling of sources demonstrating that it is a designation, indeed a genre (and thus should have a cat in line with other VG genres), and that various games/articles verifiably belong to this cat can be found at User:Bridies/Sandbox/GTA. The term/cat already has established consensus behind it; the "this-is-biased" complaint comes up now and again, and the consensus is that it's not. For a recent example discussion, see: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Archive 108#"Clone" designation bias. Regards the question "So any open world third person game set in any remotely urban environment is a clone of GTA?" Any game which a reliable source calls a "GTA clone" (perhaps bearing in mind WP:DUE) is, for our purposes, a GTA clone. And Simpsons Hit and Run: Yes, really (and duh), again verifiable. bridies (talk) 15:10, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "GTA Clone" is a legitimate genre type in the video game industry, and not a derogatory term to apply to games (which I can see can be taken that way if it wasn't established as a genre). That is, there are journalists that call games that have the open world nature of GTA as "GTA clones" as the genre because there is no other niche term to describe the genre. This argument is well established at Grand Theft Auto clone. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not an established genre, just a POV designation. Pick any popular game, and you'll find reliable sources describing other games as a clone, which is why User:Bridies/Sandbox/GTA is unimpressive. Just because I can find a whole list of reliable sourced Mario Kart clones, this doesn't mean tagging them all in a category is accurate or neutral. I consider PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale a Super Smash Bros. clone, that's my opinion. Critics might label it clone, that's their opinion and we can quote that opinion. What's fact is that it's a fighting game. The categories cover the facts. - hahnchen 17:09, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who says it's a fact? What makes it a fact rather than an opinion? You have ignored the fact that User:Bridies/Sandbox/GTA also cites sources which call GTA clone a genre (and this is a mere sampling, taken from 3 pages of an RS search; I can cite more). Searching for "mario kart clone genre" appears to, on the contrary refer to a "Karting sub-genre", to quote one source. (of course, if there is verifiably a Mario Kart clone genre, it would deserve an article/cat). bridies (talk) 17:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the main GTA clone article was kept with a strong consensus at AFD in February where it was established that reliable sources call this a genre. So far it's been personal opinion vs reliable sources in this debate. The way I see it, unless the people who want this deleted can come up with something else this should be kept with reliable sources winnig the day.--76.65.42.142 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is a valid term that is used by the videogame industry and media, regardless of whether it's "neutral" or not. If third-party reliable sources refer to a game as a "GTA clone", then that's what it is. --benlisquareT•C•E 05:21, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it were a standard industry term for a genre, then all the Grand Theft Auto games would be in this category. They're not. Because it's used as a shorthand to describe the genre that Grand Theft Auto is. There is no agreed criteria for this genre, and so we have to hang onto reviewer's opinions - if a third-party reliable source accurately describes a game as "trash", we're not going to categorise it as such. - hahnchen 14:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are agreed critera (much description and sourcing in the Grand Theft Auto clone article). bridies (talk) 00:08, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a negative connotation; all genres are subjective; WP:SUBJECTIVE is about overly effusive prose and has no application here. bridies (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification I used the wrong shortcut; I meant to reference the subjective category guidelines.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bridies' point still applies: as long as third-party sources classify the title as a GTA Clone, we are not including the game in this cat due to WPian editor's subjective opinion. --MASEM (t) 23:10, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bridies' valid point that the category does not use "overly effusive prose" is moot because that's an argument I only accidentally made in the first place. That's the clarification that you're rebutting. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point Bridies' was countering the claim the category was subjective; just because he gave the wrong policy shortcut does not invalid that. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are no subjective words, such as those listed at the link, in the term "Grand Theft Auto clone", though; it's very specific. (and again, it's not inherently non-neutral i.e. negative, being used in positive coverage, and again the Doom clone precedent). bridies (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The gaming industry uses the term "GTA clone" regularly as the established, defining genre type for many games that share elements of GTA, and they do not treat that in a negative fashion. It is similar to how "first person shooters" was at one point called "Doom clone", before the industry settled on FPS. There is no subjectivity being used here on the part of WP editors to assign this genre when third-parties are doing it for us. --MASEM (t) 14:07, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It doesn't sound encyclopedic at all. Most editors started tagging open-world games as GTA clones.What is the purpose of this? Open-world games weren't made by copying GTA. This must be deleted as soon as possible.--Chamith (talk) 13:15, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another non-argument. bridies (talk) 15:32, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Awful movies" includes the kind of word described in the link you posted above, and is not a specific term like "Grand theft Auto clone". Do any of these sources describe an "awful movie genre" and give specific attributes/criteria to be met? Because again, this is verifiably the case with "Grand Theft Auto clone"; stop posting irrelevant analogies and address the arguments that need to be addressed. bridies (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the film industry does not use the term awful movies as a genre so it is not a valid to compare the two terms. Granted some sources may call specific films awful but that is not the same thing. The subjectivity argument does not work here since in this case reliable sources have called GTA clones as a genre and Wikipedia is following suit. This is not a case of individual editors deciding it's a clone on their own. To me it seems that most of the deletion calls are irrelevant and appear to due to a significant misunderstanding of the issue.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 02:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this we actually have articles about 2 genres of generally awful movies: Cult film & Low-budget film. The introductions in each article about how the genre is widely accepted to exit but grouping individual movies is difficult because the terms are subjective. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:32, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those equates to "awful", and "cult" has more positive than negative connotations. Those are also far broader than the much more specific "Grand Theft Auto clone". Otherwise, if there are sources calling these genres (which I doubt), sources detailing the attributes, and sources placing films in these genres/cats, then create the cat, what's the problem? We also have cats for all kinds of film, video game and other genres, (cat) Psychological thrillers looks pretty subjective to me (as just one example); and all these are subjective. One cannot dunk a novel in a chemical solution and say "Oh, it turned green! That means horror!". For all genres, we rely on pundits/critics (we are not citing only reviewers here) saying "Hmmm, vampires, zombies - looks like horror to me". To quote one source: The funny thing about inventing a genre [take note] of videogames is that, until it becomes completely played out, every game that emulates your formula is going to be attached to your name. Games that feature a wide-open, freely explorable world, for example, will have a hard time avoiding the label of "Grand Theft Auto clone," especially if their worlds are littered with vehicles to steal and drive. There's the very clearly, narrowly defined criteria. We also wanted to limit the list to the best games in the genre... Inherently negative? bridies (talk) 04:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the conversation! We obviously disagree but I appreciated understanding your perspective better. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to one of the alternates used by NPOV sources as illustrated in Grand_Theft_Auto_clone#Other_terminology. Our article seems to make it clear that there is an identifiable genre of games that are intrinsically similar to Grand Theft Auto franchise games. However, it also makes clear that this name is often considered insulting for the genre, and that others such as CNN use other less POV terminology. I suggest that we adopt one of those NPOV names as our cat title. Just because we have an article with a potentially insulting title, we needn't have the cat to match; someone want to add the names cited in our article as Madonna wannabes to a category so named? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, those others would all fail WP:NEO as they are not widely adapted terms, while GTA Clone is. Additionally, the insulting aspect of the term was back after GTAIII was out, but nowadays, I see very few devs or publishers take issue with the term when it used describe their game, because it is a fair accurate description of the game that encompasses a lot of facets of gameplay mechanics. Also having a different title between the main GTA Clone and the category would be rather obvious; that said of course that if there is a push to rename the GTA Clone to something else, the category, by necessity, should follow. --MASEM (t) 23:56, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The only two which have widespread credence are open world and possibly sandbox games. We have cats on these, but I don’t believe we treat either as a genre presently (rather just gameplay mechanics). Either way, they are far broader than GTA clone, not synonyms. The others (“gangsta” etc.) do not have prevalent credence, as Masem said. bridies (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Grand Theft Auto clone is not an industry standard term, it is ill defined, and can be considered derogatory - I've not posted many arguments above, but after getting into an edit war at Red Dead Redemption, felt that I had to highlight why the category/genre is terrible and why it will lead to more edit wars.
  • Non Standard - Our featured article, GTA V describes the genre as open world action-adventure, it does not describe it as a GTA clone. Developers and publishers do not describe their titles as GTA clones. Most publications do not describe games as GTA clones. Out of the hundreds of sources for Red Dead Redemption, only two describe it as a GTA clone, neither of them has RDR as the subject. If you Google "red dead redemption" "grand theft auto clone", the first link is Grand Theft Auto clone, the second is User:Bridies/Sandbox/GTA. A user page sandbox out ranking every reliable source shows how this is non-standard terminology. In this edit, I am told that all views should be represented as per WP:NPOV, but the categorisation of RDR as a GTA Clone is clearly WP:FRINGE.
  • Ill defined - Above, we're told that GTA clone is a clearly defined genre and so it does not fail WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Apparently, it's clearly defined at Grand Theft Auto clone. But only clear definition it gives is, "falls within the genre popularized by the 2001 title Grand Theft Auto III", so it's like GTA, but to what extent is left undefined. It reads, "Grand Theft Auto clones offer players the ability to steal and drive a number of vehicles", I guess in Red Dead Redemption's case, a horse is a vehicle? And in Bully, you're limited to a bike? Entire sections of the article reads, "some games..., some games..., some games...", without any clear "all games". A lot of it is synthesis, each sentence offering a shard of description found in sources that do not use the term "grand theft auto clone" or even cover a genre. Instead, editors have taken sources describing game X, and then independently decided that game X is representive of the GTA clone genre. We're told that "They are noted for frequently bearing strong violent or criminal themes, though exceptions like American McGee Presents: Scrapland have copied its gameplay and structure with a Teen rating.", and the source for this is a single sentence in Gamespot's review which reads "Grand Theft Auto with robots?".
  • Derogatory - Grand Theft Auto clone clearly states that the term "is sometimes considered unfair or insulting." This enough should mean it is not used as a tool for categorisation. Writers like Laurie Penny may be described as a "Social Justice Warrior", a term she has claimed, but that doesn't remove the negative perception from readers, and it's not how Wikipedia would classify her. The argument that we can treat video games badly because they don't fall under WP:BLP doesn't mean we should. WP:NPOV still has to apply.
  • We already have categories for open world and action-adventure games. But to classify anything as a Grand Theft Auto clone, would not be to apply clearly defined rules, it would be overcategorisation, relying on Wikipedia:SUBJECTIVECAT. Given the derogatory nature of the term, it would also fail WP:NPOV. I don't want to have to deal with revert wars as seen on RDR, but unless this category is deleted, they will continue. If you want to document GTA clones, I suggest using a list. - hahnchen 03:55, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would agree that if not a significant coverage of sources call a game "GTA clone" as the genre (as the case of RDR) it should not be classified as that in this category as otherwise that is subjective. But there are many games that are legitimate "GTA Clones" as their primary genre (Saints Row for example), sourceable to many works, and importantly not be using as a badge of dishonor towards the title. As long as we have the sourcing that backs up the clear claim that a title is a GTA Clone, we should be fine to category games under that without evoking subjective terms. Basically the arguments present here are counter to the arguments at the AFD of Grand Theft Auto clone, and as long as that is kept or named in that fashion, this category needs to exist. --MASEM (t) 14:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your argument that just because an article exists, a category must exist is false. I can find several reliable sources describing/denigrating Proteus[1], Dear Esther[2] & Dys4ia[3] as notgames, but we don't have a category for them and we don't elevate that opinion into the infobox. - hahnchen 17:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would see no issue with using that ("notgame" as a category as long as sources are reasonably consistent that's how they would classify it. --MASEM (t) 01:35, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Bridies response to hahnchen

No, the article calls GTAV an “open world, action adventure.” Those as are two separate, originally synthesised terms (hey, if they stay in the lead of enough Wiki articles, perhaps they’ll be adopted). I would really love to see the supposed hundreds of sources calling this or whichever game “open world action adventure”. Regards RDR, the same thing happens if one googles “red dead revolution open world western action adventure” (which is in the articles lead): Wiki and sites copy-pasting Wiki. You keep talking about “hundreds” of sources, but you are yet to cite a single source placing RDR in an “open-world action adventure” genre; let alone the “hundreds” which will “clearly” demonstrate that it is WP:FRINGE. And even if it is WP:FRINGE in RDR’s case, it does not follow that it the case for other games. Whether it is or is not “industry standard” is meaningless (how’s that for an ill-defined term, and we care nothing for what source devs call their games: otherwise, we’d have a ”Hero Brawler “ and a “Dramatic horror” article already. bridies (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See below for why it is not “ill-defined” per SUBJECTIVECAT. Otherwise: Action adventure is a vast umbrella genre: it includes Tomb Raider, Prince of Persia (platformer, no?) and the entire subcategory/genre of Stealth games. Similarly, open-world: not only does this include Minecraft, but apparently we have a Minecraft clones subcat. GTA clone is far more clearly defined than these genres. A strong specific description is given in one of the RSs quoted above: and forget the Wiki article (if you have issues with the content of that article, gofixit; if you think the article/concept is untenable, try, again, to have it deleted – which won’t happen). As for vehicles vs., bikes vs. Horses. Yes, so what? In Battlefield or Halo you can drive tanks and fly jets; in TF2 or Doom you can’t get in a vehicle at all. In some FPS games you may use melee weapons; in others, not. In some, you fire rifles at Nazis, in others, lasers at aliens. Are we to delete the FPS category? From the Shoot 'em up article: critics differ on exactly which design elements constitute a shoot 'em up. Some restrict the genre to games featuring some kind of craft, using fixed or scrolling movement.[5] Others widen the scope to include games featuring such protagonists as robots or humans on foot, as well as including games featuring "on-rails" (or "into the screen") and "run and gun" movement. Should we delete the shoot ‘em up category? Every detractor here has demurred from addressing the fact that all genres are subjective. bridies (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don’t you quote the whole paragraph? It will undermine your point. The notion that it is inherently non-neutral is spurious (already cited a source giving positive coverage). Your BLP analogy is a total strawman (“social justice warrior” – that’s the least disconnected thing you can come up with, really?), and/or you don’t understand why (and that) BLPs are exceptions. By the same token, we have Category:Fascists, with the subcategories Nazis, Neo-fascists, Fascists by nationality. Those terms, I’d hazard, are “sometimes considered unfair or insulting." We have a Khmer Rouge category (and a host of subcategories); that was a deliberately pejorative term coined by the organisation’s enemies. Ditto with Viet Cong, and look: we have Category: Military units and formations of the Viet Cong. And Nazis, no? If this is fine for politics it’s fine for video games. bridies (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just go ahead and say that you will edit war over the category if it's kept (of course, I bet there’s never been an edit war over whether to catagorise someone as a neo-fascist or not). And again, we have categories for open world video games and action-adventures, but not open-world action adventures; categorising something as an action adventure does not involve clearly defined rules, other than third-party sourcing, which is what matters. bridies (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those continually citing WP:SUBJECTIVECAT should tell us about wtf they are talking. This is the entirety of WP:SUBJECTIVECAT verbatim: “Adjectives which imply a subjective or inherently non-neutral inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category. Examples include such subjective words as: famous, notable, great, etc.; any reference to size: large, small, tall, short, etc.; or distance: near, far, etc.; or character trait: beautiful, evil, friendly, greedy, honest, intelligent, old, popular, ugly, young, etc.” There. Is. No. Adjective in “Grand Theft Auto clone” (and if there is, it is “GTA”, a proper noun acting as one – about as non-vague as is possible). The notion that GTA clone is “ill-defined” or “subjective” per this link is entirely spurious, and again mere IDONTLIKEIT. As for non-neutral see above. bridies (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. While it might be acceptable to have an article documenting the evolution of the term "Grand Theft Auto clone", a category for the "genre" is inappropriate and ill-defined. In the Watch Dogs article for example, the "Grand Theft Auto clone" claim is attributed to Shacknews' review, which states throughout that the game would have qualified as little else than a mere clone had it not have brought its own innovations into the open world genre ie hacking gameplay. From there, it becomes very difficult to identify which games are straight-up clones and which go beyond by bringing something new to the table. Does Saints Row: The Third copy GTA's formula entirely or does it bring something new to the table with dildo bats? Unfortunately it seems we have conflicting sources either way because "Grand Theft Auto clone" is a contentious term. The GTA clone article does an ok job at establishing this fact (it's massively outdated since its major contributor left), but actually making a category that explicitly legitimises the term without any explanation of the difficulties with defining it to me is in violation of SUBJECTIVECAT. CR4ZE (t • c) 02:34, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This thought process is getting too much hung up on the word "clone", as when this term is being used to define games nowadays in a non-insulting way, it doesn't mean "the game has cloned much of GTA" but that "the game is built up on the basic gameplay principles of GTA" - eg "GTA 'inspired'" would be a better term if we could swing it that way, but unfortunately that's OR. So the review of Watchdogs fits exactly what "GTA Clone" means, as opposed to "a clone of GTA" phrasing that is being attributed here. --MASEM (t) 16:08, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See above for SUBJECTIVECAT being nonsense. Otherwise, you’ve again picked a supposedly contentious example as an excuse to delete the entire cat. But never mind that, as the source you are citing states: “When you make a Grand Theft Auto clone, you better make sure it provides some special ingredient that makes it stand out. Red Dead Redemption takes place in the Old West, and Sleeping Dogs lets you run wild through Hong Kong. Then you have Watch Dogs [...] What sets apart Watch Dogs from the other GTA clones...” It is a reliable source which plainly calls the game a GTA clone. bridies (talk) 18:00, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per hahnchen's bulleted arguments above. I can see the statement being made in article prose when properly sourced, but not as a category or a genre. Sergecross73 msg me 16:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to be the one to finally point out this vague adjective in "Grand Theft Auto clone", then? bridies (talk) 03:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Are you going to stop badgering everyone who disagrees with you? At this point if you haven't gotten the point across, what do you actually expect to accomplish by responding ad nauseam? -- Calidum 03:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I'm not. I'm not badgering anyone, I'm asking for unqualified arguments to be justified. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT is about vague adjectives; people are still citing it without addressing this fact. Are you or Hanhchen going to respond to that? bridies (talk) 03:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
IDHT could just as easily be thrown your way. There's a difference between "no explanation given" and "not accepting a given explanation". This situation falls into the latter. Its fine if you don't subscribe's to the oppositions viewpoint, but don't pretend it based on nothing. Sergecross73 msg me 17:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
bridies, your conduct in this discussion has so far been perverse to the extreme. Nobody asked you to scream walls of text at them for having a different view to your own. Your comments descend into badgering those who don't agree with you. Disregarding that, your response to my comment above completely missed the point. My argument was that because the term "GTA clone" is contentious, lumping a genre of games into a category would legitimise the term, which isn't our job. It is our job to document terminology that is used extensively in reliable sources, which I accepted above. That's why we have the Grand Theft Auto clone article. Having a category is separate issue and it brings about its own problems, as evidenced by the massively bloated debate this has now become. And as for SUBJECTIVECAT being redundant, I think your reading into the wording of the guideline is inconsequential. The gist of SUBJECTIVECAT is that we don't have categories which intrinsically introduce bias. In the examples listed, neither "cult actors" or "wars France lost" contain an adjective but they're there to illustrate a point similar to what I make here, so I think your interpretation of SUBJECTIVECAT is too literal to be practical. CR4ZE (t • c) 10:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The vague adjective is "similar". "Clone" is not being used to mean the literal definition of an exact copy but, instead, it's being used colloquially to mean similar. So we're really discussing Category:Games that are similar to Grand Theft Auto. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see a lot of meta discussion on places like WP with folks getting caught up on the actual names of genres, as though they are anything more than labels on drawers containing games/music etc. "Clone" is not a dirty word, it's a shorthand way of comparing like with like before someone finally, if ever, finds a different term. FPS games were known as Doom Clones until the FPS moniker stuck, Roguelikes are still partially named after Rogue because no other term has become prominent to replace it, tower defense games don't even necessarily contain towers (see Plants vs. Zombies, the most visible example of the genre). This particular genre is troublesome because the games are often referred to as open world games, but that isn't a genre, rather it's a facet of gameplay that appears within certain games within numerous genres. Our own Open world article lists everything from Legend of Zelda and Elite to Elder Scrolls, Banjo Kazooie and Midtown Madness. It is borderline meaningless beyond "big, do what you want within limits". If SUBJECTIVECAT is truly a problem for you guys here then would a list be preferable? That way individual entries could be sourced. MarvellousMeatpuppet (talk) 00:05, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suggested using a list above at the end of my long delete vote. The difference I see between GTA clone and roguelike, is that developers, publishers and writers will describe a game as a roguelike - it's standard terminology, but I don't see that for GTA clone. - hahnchen 22:58, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be a "clone" we have to use it in a clear yes/no way. The yes/no question is, did the makers of the video game intentionally copy another video game. Just because a reviewer says they think a video game is a clone does not make it so, and so many of the reliable sources do not establish clone-ness. This is just a bad way to categorize things. Creative works draw from many influences, and to categorize them by such is far to subjective.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 5 December 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:Engineering colleges in India[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. – Fayenatic London 00:38, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Category should follow the convention of Category:Engineering universities and colleges by country. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 16:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete classifying colleges or universities by what programs they offer is a bad idea - as far as I can tell, the institutions categorized here are mostly entire universities, not just the engineering schools within them. Take an example Roorkee Institute of Technology, classified in this cat, which has 10 departments according to its article, including Applied Science and Humanities, which doesn't sound like engineering. I notice the contrast with Category:Engineering universities and colleges in California which contains, with one exception, articles on the colleges of engineering AT specific universities, rather than universities themselves. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose delete. If it is the case that all these institutions offer a broader program than just engineering (which I haven't checked), then the category should be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 24 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.

Christian theologians by nationality[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:13, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The content of these two sets of categories, so with and without "Christian", are actually all about Christian theologians only, so these categories can be merged pairwise. I don't have a strong opinion about whether an upmerge or a downmerge would be more appropriate. (Note: there is one exception category which is not about Christian theologians, namely Category:Jewish theologians, so if a downmerge would be more appropriate, this Jewish category should be taken out.) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. If there are any articles that are directly in, for example, Category:French theologians that are about Christian theologians then they should be recategorized down into Category:French Christian theologians (or one of its subcats). That is just normal category tidyup and does not require discussion at CFD. Then, if it's found there are no articles about non-Christian (e.g. Jewish) theologians in some/all of these countries rationalisation of categories can be considered. DexDor (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a possible point of view, of course. But that point of view will make almost every merge proposal impossible. Besides it's never going to happen that someone goes recategorizing more than 400 articles of American theologians manually, not to speak of the other nationalities. So that would leave the situation as is for ever - namely for every of the above nationalities we'll keep two categories that serve the same usage. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerging and downmerging are different. In this case upmerging (as proposed in the nom) would be incorrect because it would remove articles from a Christian category. Downmerging is best done on an article-by-article basis because each article should be checked that it belongs in the lower category (also, often changing one category on an article to be more specific means that another category tag is now redundant and should be removed). DexDor (talk) 19:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse Merge The structure includes countries with non-Christian theologians, for instance Category:Moroccan theologians, so moving Christians up to a nationality category isn't appropriate. If there are truly no non-Christian theologians in one of these categories, I'd be open to reverse merge though. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, so the exception categories that need a "special treatment" are: Jewish, Moroccan, Tunesian and Turkish. The exact execution of how to deal with these exceptions can be elaborated separately, firstly it depends on whether a downmerge or an upmerge is being decided upon. If we downmerge, then afterwards the Category:Theologians by nationality‎ can be reestablished, in order to recategorize these four nationality subcats to the new religion-neutral category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as e.g. Jewish and Islamic theologians may also be found in such countries. I would prefer reverse merge to merger as nominated, if there was consensus to remove a category layer, but I think that is unnecessary. If the nominator is definite that all the member pages are about Christians, I could support "reverse merge then reinstate", to automate the re-categorisation of the contents; but this sort of thing is better done with wp:AWB. – Fayenatic London 16:15, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (perhaps reverse merge and then purge any Jews and Muslims into an appropriate category). Theologians are not necessarily Christian. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There are Jewish, Islamic etc theologians, which is why a separate category for Christian theologians is needed. Lekoren (talk) 09:46, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • See earlier remark about exceptions to be made for Jewish, Moroccan, Tunesian and Turkish. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:00, 14 November 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:Archbishops of Utrecht (Old Catholic)[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: merge to Category:Dutch Old Catholic bishops. – Fayenatic London 23:22, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, both parent and child category are small and it's not to expected that any new Old Catholic dioceses in the Netherlands will be established soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 10 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:Storm models[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) 09:18, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Characteristic - models by agency, essentially - is non-defining and too prone to flux to be of categorical value.  Mbinebri  talk ← 13:23, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Looking at a sample of these articles this appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic (e.g. this FA is in the category, but the text doesn't mention the agency). An upmerge to Category:Models (profession) is probably unnecessary. 21:02, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
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:Prince-Bishops of the Netherlands[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. I considered a merge but the two articles are already in local sub-categories of the HRE category suggested below. – Fayenatic London 00:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete redundant per the existence of Category:Prince-Bishops of Utrecht. Note that the Netherlands didn't even exist yet, as a country, while Utrecht was a Prince-Bishopric. Also note that Utrecht was the only Prince-Bishopric in the present-day Netherlands. So that makes this category pretty redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 10 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.

Circles of the Holy Roman 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: keep but purge of modern locations. Carlossuarez46 and RevelationDirect, thank you for agreeing to clean up the contents. – Fayenatic London 00:32, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:NONDEF, these circles are not defining characteristics of the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire that are in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what are you suggesting should be done? Putting the principalities directly in Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire or abandoning any categorisation as being parts of the Holy Roman Empire, or what? Thincat (talk) 09:03, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sheer size of Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire, it's almost unimaginable that they aren't already somewhere in this tree. Having said that, you are of course welcome to propose an alternative in the form of merging instead of deleting. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first one I checked was indeed in the category but the second(Archduchy of Austria) was not. The latter is in Category:House of Habsburg in Category:Noble families of the Holy Roman Empire in Category:Nobility of the Holy Roman Empire in Category:People of the Holy Roman Empire in Category:Holy Roman Empire so it scrapes into the wider tree. Perhaps someone can find a closer linkage. I'm sure all this would be sorted out before any deletion. Thincat (talk) 11:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (1) A number of categories of Archduchy of Austria are not shown in the edit mode. I guess it has something to do with templates, which I'm not familiar with. This article is in Category:Former countries in Europe instead of the more specific Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire but you can't manually change that. The same phenomenon is probably also causing that Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire has become so huge. Does anyone know a solution for this? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (2) If there's no better solution I would suggest to change delete into merge to Category:States of the Holy Roman Empire although I don't like it because that category would become even messier than it already is. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all No reason to delete. Categories have main articles and are well populated. Serve the purpose of categorization, which is to help users navigate to articles having common characteristics or being part of a group, in this case a circle. Hmains (talk) 17:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is WP:NONDEF no longer a reason? By the way, the circle articles are barely notable, they're basically just lists of members, and the categories contain these same members, so the categories will surely not help people to navigate. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although I sympathize with the idea as such, I would expect there will be nothing left to categorize. Many articles concerning the Holy Roman Empire are either about a person or about a principality. Articles about principalities cover (almost) the entire period of the Holy Roman Empire, while these circles only existed part of that period. Most important is to realize that there aren't any articles that really cover certain aspects of the circles themselves - that's why the categories are nominated for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permission to Empty Categories Ugh, this is a mess but I'm not sure a straight deletion is the answer. More of a complicated purge as DexDor indicates and recategorization per Thinkcat is needed by someone with more expertise than me in this period. If that empties some/all of these categories in the process, I'm OK with that. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that straight deletion is wrong, but so is inclusion of modern places into them - some places have articles in the appropriate historic context (e.g., Free Imperial City of Nuremberg; correctly categorized in Category:Franconian Circle) This can be fixed by classifying the redirects such as Imperial City of Weil der Stadt is now in Swabian Circle, not Weil der Stadt. It seems that RevelationDirect is thinking on these lines, I'd be glad to assist or let him/her do it directly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Despite being largely independent states, the principalities of the Holy Roman Empire had a diet and the circles operated as local institutions. Since they existed with derfinite boundaries, I see no reason why this tree should not exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason to delete, as mentioned, is WP:NONDEF. If you think this is not applicable in this case, please indicate why not. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:20, 17 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:Noble titles by nation[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) 00:54, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
and propose renaming all other childcategories of Category:Noble titles by nation accordingly (these all other childcategories have not been tagged)
Nominator's rationale: This is a continuation of a CfD of a few days ago, see here. The rationale is to more clearly indicate that these are people categories, not title categories. By the way, the text of the headers assume that it is a title category, but that does not match with the actual use of the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 7 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:Wikipedians for peace[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. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a useful category. Violates WP:USERCAT in that it is a category that most Wikipedians belong or should belong to this category by default. There is no encyclopedic reason to seek out users in this category for collaborative purposes. A similar category was previously deleted here, although admittedly participation was minimal. VegaDark (talk) 05:43, 10 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.

A Dozen Small English windmill categories[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. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT, WP:SMALLCAT and the spirit of WP:OCMISC. The categories with 1 article aren't really categorizing anything and all the ones with 2 are cross-referenced within the actual articles so it doesn't aid navigation. It looks like there was an attempt to avoid having any articles categorized directly under Category:Windmills in England but the number of current articles don't justify this sub-categorization scheme. No objection to recreating any of these later if the article count increases. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the 3 creators of these categories and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • No objection to the proposal, but I would suggest that Cambridgeshire and East Riding of Yorkshire are the two categories that have the greatest likelihood of being populated. Mjroots (talk) 05:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral no strong opinion either way. MRSC (talk) 06:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are part of a broader series so being small should not be the sole issue. Even one of the categories not yet created has the potential for about 10 articles. Some of the ones here have the potential for scores of articles. The two reasons that generally receive support for suggestions like this have limited growth potential and are not part of a series. Clearly growth is possible here. But then my British history is not great. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Inclusion as a broader series should only be used when the average category in that series is not a small category. That is clearly the case here and the parents are suitable targets where like content can be grouped in a meaningful way. SFB 17:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think WP:NARROWCAT or WP:SMALLCAT are relevant here and WP:OCMISC clearly isn't relevant. I don't see how this change would improve categorization. DexDor (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SMALLCAT is definitely at stake here. I know the exception with WP:SMALLCAT is about established trees, but I think it's also in the spirit of WP:SMALLCAT to not even start establishing an established tree if so many of its child categories are so small. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Either chop down the whole windmills-by-county tree (which would not be helpful as some counties have dozens of windmill articles) or let it stand. Lopping off some of the branches just makes categorization inconsistent; imagine you were a person writing windmill articles - only being allowed a category for a county when the number of windmills in that category reaches some magic number would make categorizing such articles unnecessarily complicated. DexDor (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I referenced the spirit of WP:OCMISC is because miscellaneous categories stem from the mistaken assumption that you can't have any articles "loose" in the main category. This tree seems to suffer from the same motive of trying to desperately to avoid loose articles in Category:Windmills in England when there is nothing wrong with that outcome. Thanks for elaborating on your concern. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:27, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The two counties that I checeked have a list article covering dozens of mills. Some disappeared long ago and many will be NN, but I suspect that there is a good deal of scope for creating more articles on surviving mills, which will populate the categories. I suspect the extent to which county categories are populated depends on how many mill enthusiasts there are in the area. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 16 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_10&oldid=1138399904"