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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protections against legal system abuse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Hopelessly POV category. Almost comic current contents. Savidan 00:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- This is a brave attempt, but hopeless. If kept, add Vexatious litigant. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2012 (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.

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. That said, there is a consensus for a rename, just not for what the new name(s) should be. Feel free to renom for renaming. Besides the categories themselves, the dab page Egyptian may be helpful as a place to start, including Egyptian Arabic, and Egyptian language, and maybe even Egyptian hieroglyphs. - jc37 18:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Egyptian languages to Category:Languages of Egypt

Nominator's rationale: I would like to propose the merger of Egyptian languages into Languages of Egypt. The latter category complies with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and I do not see any value in having to apparently redundant categories. Dave (djkernen)|Talk to me|Please help! 14:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Egyptian languages seems to be mainly ancient languages. Category:Languages of Egypt seems to be mainly modern. If that's true, consider rename Category:Egyptian languages to Category:Ancient Egyptian languages. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose one is about the country the other is about ethnolinguistic derivations, Egyptian being an ancient ethnic group. Though considering the current contents, Northernhenge's suggestion would work. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename respectively Category:Languages of ancient Egypt and Category:Languages of modern Egypt. They do appear to be distinct subjects, and this rename will make the distinction clear. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I see it, Egyptian language should be a linguistic category (such as a language sub-family) while Language of Egypt should be a geographic one. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:08, 10 January 2012 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Children's video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Very arbitrary and subjective categorisation. Described as listing games "intended for an audience of children between the ages of 6 and 16" but it is very rare for publishers to publicly reveal a game's intended audience, particularly to such a specific group such as "children". A game's ESRB, PEGI, etc. rating only describes the minimum age that a game is suitable for - the intended audience may range far beyond this. Because of this, it appears that many of the articles' listings must have just been based on an editor's personal opinion.

If a category is required it should probably be based on something that could be sourced, such as ESRB/PEGI rating. Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 13:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. First off, its name is too vague. Does it mean "child-friendly" (like Star Fox) or does it mean "a typical adult wouldn't be caught dead playing it except with his kid" (like a game based on Sesame Street)? My intuition is the latter, yet this category is being applied to the former. Moreover, in either case, the matter is subjective. It's not Wikipedia's job to determine what's suitable for children or what isn't suitable for adults. These things get really fuzzy, too: My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic is targeted squarely at children, yet the show is famous for having a large adult demographic. I think categories should stick to clear, objective criteria. ESRB/etc. categories could do that, and they could even be automatically inserted by templates. Whether that should be done is a question I'll leave to others. - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The definition of the category Children's video games refers to games that are "child-friendly" and do not feature mature content like graphic violence, strong sexual content, etc.. While adults can play most of these "child-friendly" games without needing to be in front of his kid or being a parent/uncle/aunt/legal guardian in the first place, these games feature characters that are familiar to video gaming children. GVnayR (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • But as suggested above, PEGI or ESRB ratings can be used to categorise games in this way. By definition, a PEGI 3 rating covers games that are:

- it shouldn't be up to Wikipedia editors to decide which games are "child-friendly". Chimpanzee ^{Us | Ta | Co} 10:06, 11 January 2012 (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.

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 to Category:Praetorian prefectures. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Praetorian prefectures of the Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Praetorian prefectures of the Roman Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The distinction "Praetorian prefectures of the Byzantine Empire" and "Praetorian prefectures of the Byzantine Empire" is meaningless. They were the same state. The two categories should be upmerged to Category:Praetorian prefectures. Constantine ✍ 10:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – should the nom not then be addressing Category:Byzantine Empire and Category:Roman Empire? (Byzantine Empire sounds to me rather different from Roman Empire.) Occuli (talk) 21:34, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• My mistake: my point was that during the time period where praetorian prefectures existed, i.e. during Late Antiquity, one cannot really speak of a distinction between "Roman" and "Byzantine". It is nonsensical to have the prefecture of the East for instance as belonging to both the Roman and the Byzantine Empires, when we are talking about the same political entity. Constantine ✍ 22:21, 6 January 2012 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who believe in reincarnation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Does not support collaboration to categorize Wikipedians together who happen to believe in reincarnation. This category is nearly identical to the numerous other categories listed here, which have a near unanimous history of deletion for the same reason. A userbox is fine, but a category implies there is some project-benefiting purpose towards grouping similar users, which is not the case. VegaDark (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Wikipedians who might see the backlogs cleared. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:08, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • FTW! Bearcat (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2012 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ark of Taste foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another classic overcat by some unofficial third party's listing See WP:OC#TOPTEN. Whether it's a publication by the Rolling Stone or the slow foodies, its still Overcat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 08:06, 6 January 2012 (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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:50, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Roller hockey All the Continental Championships to Category:Roller hockey championships

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Shouldn't have the "all the" but maybe there is a more appropriate rename target. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2012 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Free multilingual software (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Drastically underpopulated category, since nowadays most free software is localized. It wouldn't be useful to list all of them here. No corresponding category in the Category:Software tree. Pnm (talk) 01:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - contrary to the nominator, this looks reasonably populated to me; WP:ITSNOTUSEFUL doesn't seem a reason to delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:46, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Take a look at Category:Free multimedia software for example. It has 28 entries and a third are multilingual: Airtime Ampache Boxee FBReader GStreamer Juice (aggregator) LiVES MediaInfo XBMC4Xbox. (Many of the remaining ones are either defunct, or are frameworks which don't have a user interface.) The stats for this one category illustrate that there is a lot of multilingual software, and if this category were populated fully there would be hundreds of entries. If I were to add just those the nominated category would be 40% larger. It's fair to say it's drastically underpopulated. – Pnm (talk) 15:23, 15 January 2012 (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.

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:Open source video games. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:38, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Free game software to Category:Free, open source video games Category:Open source video games

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Underpopulated category which appears to have identical scope. Pnm (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Open Source =/= Free; freeware is usually not open source; bannerware is free, but clearly closed source; open source doesn't mean free either, since people sell those things as well. Game software =/= game as well... a game engine or game builder is game software, but clearly not a game. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge "Free game software" 's description clearly doesn't mean "free game software", it's much more restrictive. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• How about renaming to Freeware games?
• Merge to Category:Freeware games. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:42, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:Freeware games already exists. However, freeware is software distributed at no cost under a proprietary license. The nominated category's two listings OpenArena and XShogi are free software, not freeware. – Pnm (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The proposed target has been renamed to Category:Open source video games in this discussion. Scope hasn't changed: these are still duplicate categories. – Pnm (talk) 00:21, 23 January 2012 (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.

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free digital typography software to Category:Free typography software

Nominator's rationale: Rename to remove redundancy. Practically speaking, all typography software relates to digital typography. Pnm (talk) 00:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. If software exists that supports manual typography, that could harmlessly go in the same category. --Northernhenge (talk) 20:23, 6 January 2012 (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.