< October 9 October 11 >

October 10

Category:Doomtree (band) albums

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]
  • Propose renaming Category:Doomtree (band) albums to Category:Steve Zing albums
Nominator's rationale: Per Doomtree (band) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:14, 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:Grand Theft Auto clones

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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
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]
  • 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.
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]
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]
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]
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

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]
  • 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

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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
  • 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)

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

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]
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

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

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]
  • 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]
  • 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

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]
  • Propose renaming Category:Noble titles by nation to Category:Nobility by nationality and title
  • Propose renaming Category:Noble titles of the United Kingdom to Category:British nobility by title
  • Propose renaming Category:Italian noble titles to Category:Italian nobility by title
  • Propose renaming Category:French noble titles to Category:French nobility by title
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

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

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]
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]
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