April 11
Category:Three Holy Hierarchs
- 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. Arguments to merge were based on WP:SMALLCAT, whereas arguments to keep were not based on any existing guideline. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, with no possibility of expansion of the category. Besides all articles refer to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge 2 of the 3 are also Cappadocian Fathers. Church Fathers is the right level of specificity here. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I agree that there is no possibility of expansion, but the Orthodox Churches have singled the three out as special. Does WP know better? There are many early fathers. If the Orthodox Church thinks these three special, so should WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge They have already been effectively listified in their eponymous article. That should be sufficient for EO sensibilities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in the strongest terms -- There are a great many categories that will never expand, for instance Category:Twelve Apostles. The articles in that category, not surprisingly, tend to link to each other. I doubt that anybody will propose deleting it. Neither Category:Church Fathers nor Cappadocian Fathers is directly equivalent with the Category:Three Holy Hierarchs. There is no harm in keeping it and there may be in its deletion. Robert Greer (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge. Seems to be a fairly textbook case of WP:SMALLCAT. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 29 April 2016 (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:Communities in Nova Scotia
- 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 11:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Better handled by the pre-existing Category:Communities in Nova Scotia by county —swpbT 19:48, 11 April 2016 (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:Television series written by Samira Fazal
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: keep Category:Television series written by Samira Fazal. Note that Category:Television series written by Fintan Ryan has been deleted before this discussion closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: TV written by categories are deprecated by precedent such as this Le Deluge (talk) 18:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I do not understand the objection to the first. Many TV series have multiple authors. I do not think we should encourage categories for those with multiple authors, but Samira Fazal appears to be the sole author of at least two series. The other appears to have been deleted already. The alternative might to merge to a "Works by ... " category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: IMHO the precedent quoted above incorrectly claimed support from WP:TV#Categories. That is a guideline against "People by series" but the categories nominated here are "Series by people". The precedent makes a separate point discouraging such categories for series that have multiple writers. PKI's suggestion may be a way round that problem. – Fayenatic London 11:55, 19 April 2016 (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:Digital-only games
- 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. Those who argued for deletion have the stronger guidelines-based argument here. (Also, don't try to vote stack, people. Doing so is counterproductive. It's better to just let your arguments stand on their own rather than annoying the closer with having to sift through anonymous IP comments which will just be discounted anyway.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 8 June 2016 (UTC) (Note: After closing the discussion, this was pursued, revealing several of the accounts that participated in this discussion to be sockpuppets. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC))[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Is the means of distribution really defining? We already have the likes of Category:Online gaming services so the only distinction for these games is that they don't come on a CD/DVD. Le Deluge (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, the means of distribution is definitive. If players are looking for a game, they would like to know how they could purchase it. If the digital game requires paying before downloading or playing online, then this something only players with credit cards can afford. 173.55.37.52 (talk) 01:31, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment this naming makes no sense. "digital" does not mean online distribution. Any non-analog videogame (ie. all of them except games on the Odyssey or VCR games) are "digital"; even many non-electronic games are digital (ie. chess, checkers, etc); DVDs and CDs are digital only formats. -- 70.51.45.100 (talk)
- Rename Maybe this one can be called "Non-physical video games"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.55.37.52 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Solution in search of a problem. This kind of distribution is not a defining trait such that it's covered or emphasized in reliable sources—same for other forms of media. And that's aside from the issues with the name. czar 15:48, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If there's something wrong with this category, why do we have something like Atari Jaguar-only games? Games release exclusively for a certain platform or something else is distinct. 173.55.37.52 (talk) 16:15, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you read or listen to video game reviews, the reviewer sometimes says some games aren't released physically. So how can someone say this topic isn't covered in sources? 173.55.37.52 (talk) 16:19, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Not every characteristic is a defining characteristic and in this case it doesn't seem to define the game. Delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Are categories about games released exclusively for the Atari Jaguar or Playstation defining? 173.55.37.52 (talk) 01:09, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Classifying how games are retailed is necessary, especially to gamers who would like to know how they could purchase certain games. 173.55.37.52 (talk) 05:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When home consoles became standard, the games played were all physical. The games came in cartridges, and later optical discs. But many years after that, the internet became more relevant, and various stuff have been practiced. Since then, it possible to turn a movie, a song, an a video game into a computer file that can be transfered, and that's when things became digital. Companies resort to make things digital to reduce cost. However, distribution is less as only those with credit cards can buy them. If I'm a young game fan who finds an interesting game, but learns that it has no physical release, I'd be disappointed as purchase cards require a lot of qualifications. 172.56.30.248 (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep How is this defining? A game that does not have a physical release is a lot like one that was released exclusively for a particular platform. 172.56.30.248 (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep In some cases, companies release a game only in digital to test its marketability. If it makes a considerable number of downloads, then the company might want to give it a physical release. Otherwise, the game stays only at digital. This is another thing that makes digitalizing things something worth classifying. Duke17 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Duke17: Because companies first release a game through digital distribution before a physical release is a reason to have "digital-only games" as a category? Not because of games that are, you know, actually "digital-only"? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per WP:CATDEF. So far, people have argued for keeping on the basis of:
- Gamers want to know how to buy a game. But we are not a sales catalog.
- Some digital games may be released on this medium as part of a particular release strategy. That isn't a rationale to keep a category for all digital games, and there are probably issues of CATDEF in such a Category:Video games with digital releases prior to physical release. Besides, given that game developers would never release their comprehensive strategy for product development to the public, we'd be left guessing as to which companies intentionally released a product digitally to test the market. In other words, a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT issue. And we have no categories similar to this one, such as Category:Video game betas. We've never categorized based on release structure and I think this is better handled in articles, given how complicated a release can be. ~ RobTalk 18:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As a side note, the closer should keep in mind that all IPs that have participated in this discussion geolocate to the same location. There is some socking going on here. ~ RobTalk 18:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Imagine a single cat of "published books". We wouldn't have that or "digital books". Waaaay too incredibly broad cats. Same thing for games. - jc37 09:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment True, this encyclopedia my not be referred to as a sales catalog. However, articles about games provide information like what platform the game is released on or how the game is released. Mr. CF (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If this category is in anyways irrelevant, why do we categories for games released exclusively for a particular platform? Why do we have things "playstation-only games" or "xbox-only games"? What makes them worth staying? Mr. CF (talk) 18:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Some games that are only released digitally are produced at low quality. In fact some of them are made with qualities reminiscent of games released in the early-1990s or 1980s for nostalgic reasons. Therefore there is distinction when it comes to releasing games this way, and it's not just a form of distribution. This is a lot like movies that are released on video without a theatrical release. Slayer of corrupt (talk) 15:16, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Being "digital-only" is not a defining characteristic of a video game. It says absolutely nothing about quality, genre, origin, theme, or gameplay. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:21, 7 June 2016 (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:UNHCR durable solutions
- 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 L'ondon 11:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: 3-member WP:SMALLCAT per Refugee#Durable_solutions Le Deluge (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I think the list in the article is as much as we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2016 (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:Election result formatting templates
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Politics formatting templates. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Basically a single template with the target category not being overly populated either. PanchoS (talk) 06:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Election result formatting templates to Category:Election and referendum result table formatting templates, or Category:Table formatting templates for election and referendum results
- Nominator's rationale: Only got this right at second sight. Distinguishing the actual result tables from the table formatting templates makes sense. While the proposed wording is rather long, it is better at describing the actual content. PanchoS (talk) 16:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess we're stuck with "Election and referendum" for now to maintain consistency with the rest of the tree, but in the long term we could perhaps consider replacing them with "Vote". Keep E&R for now. "Table" feels redundant though, can't we just have Category:Election and referendum result formatting templates? In fact it looks like a formatting category is always going to be pretty small, so I think my preference would be to rename it to Category:Political formatting templates to join other members of Category:Wikipedia formatting and function templates by subject area.Le Deluge (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Politics formatting templates would be a better name, on reflection - in line with Chemistry etc. Le Deluge (talk) 22:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Support alt rename per Le Deluge. Category:Politics formatting templates sounds like a good idea. --PanchoS (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- My preference would be to keep the present name and provide a headnote that it can be adapted for referendums (which are likely to be much less commonly required). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2016 (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:Table and column templates
- 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: split. – Fayenatic London 20:45, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Though columns may be produced using HTML tables (though divs are preferred), these are functionally different kinds of templates: the one rendering structured information as actual tables, the others merely breaking content into several columns. Splitting the category would considerably help an author find the template they need for a particular purpose. PanchoS (talk) 06:12, 11 April 2016 (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:Unpretty Rapstar
- 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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:18, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The main article Unpretty Rapstar is a stub. It should be fleshed out and sourced before creating a category for it. Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- The article that I saw was a bit more than a stub. We have 10 articles in a contestants subcat and two articles, presumably on two series. My reaction would be to merge Unpretty Rapstar 2 with the main article and then delete, leaving the contestants category with the one article as its main article but we cannot do that while there are still two substantive articles. I am far from happy about these contestant categories, which seem to fail WP:OC#PERF, but while the articles survive, they have to have a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:South Korean reality television series, I guess both User:Dimadick and User:Peterkingiron may be okay with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 24 April 2016 (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:Actors who have portrayed Jesus Christ
- 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 11:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Textbook case of categorizing performers by performance. Pichpich (talk) 01:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom - you beat me to it. <g> Le Deluge (talk) 16:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with the possible exception of Caviezel, it's non-defining. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. We do not categorize people by the characters they have performed. We do not have a category Category:Actors who have portrayed Tarzan or Category:Actors who have portrayed Batman. Dimadick (talk) 06:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- DElete -- The sensitivity of the subject means that there are relatively few, but that is no reason for making an exception to WP:PERFCAT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:PERFCAT. about as clear as could be. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:04, 13 April 2016 (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.