< September 1 September 3 >

September 2

Category:Video games featuring female antagonists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining trait of a video game, over-broad and unclear inclusion criteria. Recently created category as well (< 1 month). The description attempts to tamp down the vast scope - how many video games don't include at least *one* female antagonist these days - by saying that the female must be the "primary antagonist" - but this restriction is already being ignored, and would be very hard to draw the line on. As an example, Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn was added, and while that game features female antagonists - notably the vampire Bodhi - its "primary antagonist", Irenicus, is male (as was Bhaal). Chrono Trigger has Queen Zeal as a key antagonist, sure, but there's another male lizard key antagonist, and the primary antagonist is an inhuman alien. Or for another awkward example - Portal & Portal II. The antagonist is an inhuman AI in Portal - an AI with a female voice actor for its lines, sure, but not actually "female". Portal II has a different primary antagonist by section - in Act I, the antagonist is an AI with a female voice at least, but in Act III and the end of the game, the antagonist is an AI with a male voice. Does this qualify? Not by a standard that claims there can only be one "primary antagonist" certainly, even ignoring the robot part. This category is just asking for problems; I could keep nitpicking based off only the small sample of games currently in it, and the category isn't even CLOSE to being 'complete' yet if it is kept. SnowFire (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have no doubt that your category was made in good faith. However, per Wikipedia:Categorization#Articles, members of a category must be verifiable, a core principle of Wikipedia, and that is impossible if the inclusion criteria isn't clear. A category trait must also be "defining" and not incidental. For the characters themselves, this is a defining trait, so Category:Female characters in video games and Category:Male characters in video games are fine. For the games, there is no easy answer, because per above editors will add in games that merely have any female antagonist in it - and/or argue about what "primary" means - and then this category will encompass nearly all video games. That said, I'd certainly have no objection to rewriting & expanding Gender representation in video games#Female antagonists. SnowFire (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't think a game fits then you should remove it from the category and if you think the inclusion criteria isn't worded properly then by all means reword it yourself. (PS: if it comes up as unsigned again I don't think it's my fault as I'm using the tildes properly) --Madbane54 08:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madbane54 (talk • contribs)
Keep And for your concerns: Actually the article Baldur's Gate II: Shadows of Amn states: "Jon Irenicus and his sister Bodhi are the chief antagonists, with Irenicus the game's main villain." GLaDOS is treated as a "female characer" by Wikipedia and by the media (and SHODAN too). Actually it's all very easy answers. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Those examples are just scratching the surface. Even if you somehow argued me off those games, I could replace them with more games that show there isn't a good standard to be used. (If you insist, Final Fantasy 9, Final Fantasy 10, Suikoden I, & Valkyria Chronicles.) Madbane's own description of the category says "'the primary antagonist, singular, not "one of the antagonists," and specifically calls out side villains (like Bodhi) as not qualifying. My goal isn't to remove those examples from the category, it's to show that attempting to draw this line is impossible, and that "video games featuring a female antagonist somewhere" (aka my list of examples above) is not a useful category. SnowFire (talk) 06:10, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Except Bodhi is a primary antagonist (one of the 2 "chief antagonists", as they're both described in Wikipedia, and they're equal she just dies first). Random example, Valkyria Chronicles - she's even on the cover (taking half of the entire cover) and is also a symbol of the game otherwise (even googling phrase "Valkyria Chronicles antagonist" will bring you only [1] and [2] because she's the only one that matters, the only one who's prominent, which was of course excepted as they put only her and 2 heroes on the cover). Suikoden - how could anyone even have any objections. This is all so obvious. --SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 08:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, if you redefine this category to be "has an important female antagonist in the game", all of those games apply. But if Brahne qualifies for FF9, we have a category that is ridiculously overbroad that includes practically any game with villains (e.g. not racing games or the like). Not useful. SnowFire (talk) 15:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And we don't, it's only for Main antagonists aka the final bosses or their bosses if applicable. If you don't agree with some of the additions like how I haven't agreed with some of Snake's ones then stop making me repeat myself and Remove Them! --Madbane54 (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would just find myself in an edit war with User:SNAAAAKE!! who has a reputation as being very persistent in his views. I do agree that if this category was changed to be defined as "Video games with a female antagonist as the final boss" then at least there'd be an objective standard, which would fix one of the problems of the category. While such a category definition would be *better*, I'm still not sure this is an "interesting enough" category - are there useful "categorization by final boss" categories to be had? But don't get me wrong, if this category is kept, I'd agree with you that the definition should be locked down to something verifiable, since I'm sure even SNAAAKE can agree that despite Selvaria appearing on the Valkyria Chronicles cover, she is definitely not the final boss no matter what. SnowFire (talk) 20:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then we hit a game where the final boss is genderless and few fans decided that it's a female (because, for example, voice actor was a female), and so we move on to another flame war. SkywalkerPL (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What "opening the door for edit wars" means in this context: it means I (or another editor) would remove a game from this category based on my reasoning above, and User:SNAAAAAKE! (or another editor) would add it back, and we'd spend time arguing about what exactly qualifies as a "primary antagonist", a very blurry line. Repeat 1,000 times. Repeat for more categories if categorization by antagonist becomes a trend - games with British primary antagonists, anyone? The same exact thing would happen if a "Literature featuring female antagonists" category was created, by the way. SnowFire (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you shouldn't remove categories from articles based on the idea that you don't like them or think that they aren't notable or core (not in this case anyway) to the subject without any reasoning as to what the core of the subject actually is instead. That is not how the site works. And that statement says to me only to look at your contribs, SnowFire, which I am not by the way, but not saying I wouldn't, but that is definitely not the way to decide categorisation, by deciding what you would edit war about. Is anyone even talking about the other ways in which these articles will be categorised without this particular category? No. See. I don't believe I have taken anyone on bad faith here, and you aren't going to break the site by deleting this one category, but you certainly aren't going to fix it either, and you are breaking it by deleting them all (insofar as their only purpose is to privide navigation, you are definitely deleting all of that when this argument is taken to extension).
  • Here is the facts you are not considering, it doesn't matter how many categories are on an article so long as they are based on defining features of the subject, provided they aren't becoming actually obscure. They aren't supposed to be part of the prose, or part of the information on the page. They are a navigation tool. Cross referencing. Indexing. Those three things. If you are discussing anything else... then you are discussing something else then... Categories are about navigation. Finding things. If that's not what you are discussing, and now it is truly repetitive, well then you are discussing something else, and that is why it is not a democracy, because you can't vote that away. ~ R.T.G 08:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You misinterpreted me entirely. I don't mean "I'd remove a game from this category because I think the category should be deleted." I mean that taking the category as it is and trying to good-faith populate it will inherently result in disagreements over who exactly counts as a "primary antagonist," and these are disagreements that can't reasonably be resolved, because who exactly is the antagonist is isn't clear, whether multiple characters might qualify as the primary antagonist isn't clear, etc. It's a bad line. For example, if this category is kept, there should be no debate that StarCraft II: Wings of Liberty should be a part of it; the main antagonist is definitely female in that game (Sarah Kerrigan). However, see the list of games I mentioned above that SNAAAAKE! feels very strongly qualify for this category, and I would consider suspect members who should be removed (if the category was kept at all). Those games are just the tip of the iceberg, which isn't surprising because "categorization by primary antagonist" is asking for trouble, it's not well-defined. Ask yourself why we don't have the seemingly obvious categorization for actual military battles by win/loss; shouldn't the Battle of Saratoga be classified as an "American miltiary victory"? For that one case, sure. For the many other borderline cases where source A says victory, source B says draw, source C hedges with "tactical victory, strategic loss", how do you categorize a battle like that? The answer is: it's a bad fit for Wikipedia categories, don't even try. SnowFire (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are saying that we can't have this category because people in general are sort of dumb and hit each other with their new toys... We already knew that... That people will not be able to make up their minds what it all means... Who are all these confused people!? I think they are short on indexing function, ~ R.T.G 19:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually, "the big bad is a woman" has been treated as an object of academic interest at a large number of video games - simply look at the past programs for the Console-ing Passions conferences. And, besides, video game scholars only began genuinely examining women in VG in the past decade, so I'm not sure I would use their interest as a barometer of notability. There are women big bads, categories index things, so why not index according to women big bads? What harm does it do if there are two big bads? or three? Something can exist in more than one category...Thebrycepeake (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, their interest is our only barometer of notability. It's the only possible objective standard. Powers T 01:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe I laid out my reasons fairly clearly before if you'd like to try understanding why I did it. Anyway, two points: I'm not opposed, and in fact would endorse, someone writing an article or expanding Gender representation in video games, per earlier comments. So any academic research can go there. Second, by the standard that SNAAAAKE! and surely casual readers of the category title would use, the claim that "very few games feature female antagonists" is false. A solid majority of games that feature antagonists at all include some female antagonist, somewhere, making the broad version of this category of limited value. (In fairness, Madbane54 has advocated a narrow reading of the category, which I would as well were this category to be kept, but I don't think that would be an easy inclusion standard to consistently maintain at all.) SnowFire (talk) 02:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is an interesting topic. But there are lots of interesting topics that are inappropriate categories. Categorization by (primary?) antagonist is just not gonna work in fiction; there are too many edge cases that require text, it isn't an uncontroversial on/off switch. What of characters who are only briefly antagonists? Antagonists half the story? Antagonists 90% of the story but not for the last 10%? What if there's a character who is seemingly an antagonist but is actually an ally of the protagonists? etc. SnowFire (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's my opinion on each of those: Briefly: No, First half: yes if the antagonist is not working for the 2nd half antagonist, 90%: Yes if considered the person in charge or had been in charge until a betrayal or 3rd party, Secret ally: No. Also if something like the Villains wiki which I've looked at recently can adequately explain what fits in which category (some of them are fairly complex) I'm pretty sure Wikipedia which is far superior can pull it off. And lastly what is so confusing about the word primary? --Madbane54 (talk) 23:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The point, which you seem to have missed, is that such complicated inclusion criteria are not well suited for our category system. You could construct a valid list article using those criteria, but trying to maintain a category using them is likely a fool's errand. Powers T 19:46, 14 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:Dennis vehicles

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: discussion aborted/pre-empted. This discussion seems to have been pre-empted by the RFC linked to below. The category can be re-nominated again, if desired, now that the larger discussion has taken place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:36, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a simple C2D that was opposed. The company name is Dennis Specialist Vehicles. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Dennis (automobile) or the Dennis Company is a different vehicle manufacturer. That makes the current name ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the main article for a vehicle isn't the name of the manufacturing company. The main article (if there were one), after which the category should be named, would be the article on the brand. Join the discussion mentioned below. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:10, 7 September 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:Mourner Users

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) 03:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not quite sure what this is intended to be, but it doesn't appear to be a useful category. DexDor (talk) 20:18, 2 September 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:Suicides by firearm in Fresno County, California

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) 03:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: whole subcategory tree should be deleted if sparsely populated, and likely never well populated. content is fine for suicides in california, county only necessary for a few, even then breaking down by firearm by county not necessary Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:03, 2 September 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:Suicides by firearm in Contra Costa County, California

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 (category was empty at close) There are more of these but they need to be individually nominated or placed in a group nomination together. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Suicides by firearm in Contra Costa County, California to Category:Suicides in Contra Costa County, California
Nominator's rationale: Category:Suicides by firearm in California has been divided into subcats by county, with most having 1-3 articles. I think we should either delete most of these categories (except Los Angeles County), or, if the other suicides are enough, rename them Category:Suicides in Contra Costa County, California etc. I will try to nominate the other sub cats this way, unless someone knows how to include more in this CFD Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This was previously requested at the Cali project talk page, comments were:
This is currently subcategorized by county, which in my opinion is a bad scheme because it splits what appears to be only about 100 articles by (at present) over two dozen counties, half of which only have one article. No other state's firearm suicide category is split by county, nor is the county of particular significance. Unless there's some compelling rationale for doing it this way, I think the county subcats should all be nominated for upmerging at CFD. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 12 August 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:Lakes of Waldo County, Maine

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is one example of categories of lakes of Maine by county. I surveyed six other states at random and found that landforms were categorized by county while lakes were all in one statewide category. I think that all of the articles on Maine lakes are already in the landforms of X county category as well as a lakes category. I'm proposing that the Maine lakes categories be made consistent with that approach. Before happening upon this page, I already emptied two of the by-county categories yesterday as a trial balloon, to see if any watchers objected. I'm asking here to see what opinion more experienced categorists have of the proposal. The existing by-county categories all have between three and eight pages in them. And if the decision is to delete the by-county categories, could the pages be automatically included in the Lakes of Maine category beforehand, or should I first revise the pages manually? Jbening (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: I've put the CfD template on Category:Lakes of Waldo County, Maine, but I'd like to hold off on adding the grouped template on all the by-county category pages until I (hopefully) get some preliminary take here on whether what I'm proposing sounds sensible. Jbening (talk) 17:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This category was deleted out of process. The nominator admitted to emptying the category, as he has with similar categories for Kennebec and Lincoln County, Maine. I do not believe that sorting landforms by county is anymore trivial than sorting people or other categories by county.--TM 09:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for causing the category to be restored, Namiba. I agree that it was deleted prematurely, even though I did my best to explain the situation in my nomination rationale, as you correctly read it. My argument for deleting it and the other by-county categories for lakes, rivers, etc., doesn't hinge on whether those categories are trivial. Rather, I'm arguing for achieving consistency with other states, where the norm appears to be categorizing landforms in general by county, while individual types of landforms are generally categorized state-wide. I don't see any reason why Maine's landforms or counties are different that would justify having a categorization scheme for Maine that is different from those for all of the other states that I sampled. The fact that, in Maine's case, the vast majority of by-county categories of lakes, rivers, etc., contain so few articles does appear to justify the more common approach of categorizing specific types of landforms state-wide, thus producing categories with a more reasonable number of articles. But so far at least, this deletion discussion doesn't seem to be generating enough actual discussion to justify making the change, even if I end up persuading you. So if I get a chance over the weekend, I'm going to initiate another discussion not limited just to Waldo County but for all of the counties, which will hopefully draw in a larger community of discussants. I sent up this trial balloon just for Waldo County to see whether any of the people who have more experience with category organization than I do would raise an argument for why I was totally off-base. That hasn't happened yet, so I'm now up for broadening the discussion. Jbening (talk) 20:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've initiated a general discussion of this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#Landform categories, large and small. Jbening (talk) 22:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting this category and leaving the other similar categories does nothing to address the nominators concerns. I ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination or, if the user does not, for the closing editor to close this discussion as a no-consensus.--TM 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)--TM 23:12, 9 September 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:Films shot in CinemaScope

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) 03:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with other categories of this ilk[3], in most cases not a defining feature of the film and little effort being made to ensure film articles verifiably belong to the category. DonIago (talk) 15:58, 2 September 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:Documentary films about music genres

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) 02:32, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this is speediable, as the category has a variety of parent categories. However, I believe one of those 3 parents, Category:Films by music genre should be the model. If you take a look at the category contents the vast majority of articles are not films about the "genre," per se, but rather, biographical documentaries about musicians working within those genres. For this reason, I believe a rename is appropriate. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:37, 2 September 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:Alleged war profiteers

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) 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A potential minefield of BLP violations. Binksternet (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Creator is spamming over several pages. I'm trying to clean it up. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 15:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
they are not spamming, which would be bad enough (as in spamming for solitiations for comment, etc). they are adding BLP violations by adding this category to articles without sources indicating it. they have done no edits other than this, and only recently. Wordslab is a SPA, a POV pusher, and should be immediately topic banned from all politics and biography articles, if not permanently banned outright. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are BLP violations, then by all means issue talk page warnings. I do see one message from Mercurywoodrose. Blocking editors for defamatory content or unsupported controversial edits can be a fairly straightforward process -- especially if the requisite warnings have been issued. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:39, 2 September 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:People executed by the Timurid dynasty

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:37, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category, there is only one person it, namely a local Timurid ruler in Samarkand who had been executed by his successor. This one person is already in Category:Timurid monarchs as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 2 September 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:Khorasan under the Samanid Empire

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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains one childcategory, so it's a redundant categorization layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:06, 2 September 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.
More