Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 2

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< October 1 October 3 >

October 2

Category:The Real Housewives cast members

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) 22:24, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reality TV shows are (at least allegedly) not performers playing a role. Rather, they appear as themselves. --Orlady (talk) 13:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It never says anything about playing a role. We do not categorize singers by what specific performances they made.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most singers perform many times throughout their lives, and may be notable for many such performances. The shared defining characteristic of reality TV contestants is that their performance is in most cases a one-off event which propels them from obscurity to notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 11 October 2013 (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:Muslim sportspeople

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) 03:26, 10 October 2013 (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:Wikipedia essays giving advice

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. Category:Wikipedia behavioral essays was proposed and could be created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:44, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any/much difference in meaning between "essays giving advice" and "guidance essays" (if there is a significant difference perhaps someone could explain it on the category pages and link them to each other then I'd happily withdraw this CFD). The reason I've suggested merging in this direction is that there's a template that adds the "guidance" category to pages (both categories were created in early 2010 and contain 100+ essays). DexDor (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note:
Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays have been notified. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted from CFD 2013 September 23
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't see any significant difference in the meaning of the two titles, but in practice the two categories are being used differently.
  1. Category:Wikipedia essays giving advice consists overwhelmingly of advice on editor conduct and attitude. 50 of the 101 essay titles begin with "do not" or "don't". Many others have similar themes: Candor, Negative energy, Nobody cares about your opinion.
  2. Category:Wikipedia guidance essays is much more varied, but much less focused on conduct and attitude.
So I suggest that the best solution will probably be to merge the two categories as proposed, but create a new category for the essays on on editor conduct and attitude. I can think of various titles which might work, but I think that the best route would be to seek some consistency, and follow the model of Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines by creating a new Category:Wikipedia behavioral essays. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 6 October 2013 (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:Pie throwing

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) 16:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unfocused category. Pieing and List of people who have been pied are the only obvious members; everything else is only tangentially associated with pieing at best. For instance, it's far from the main thing associated with a cream pie, or Roscoe Arbuckle, or Soupy Sales. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 11:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 September 22
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 2 October 2013 (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:Video games featuring female protagonists

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:48, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hi. Almost all video games have female protagonists. In fact, the only video game without a female protagonist that I know of is Company of Heroes. We need a category called "Video games not featuring a female protagonist". Codename Lisa (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is blatantly false, see the sub-section below. --
talk) 10:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
And seriously, if you won't take it back (not rephrase, but say: "I misinformed you, my rationale was completely untrue"), I'll take it to ANI. I've spent too many hours (a two-digit number) compiling this list for someone to delete it based on such a brazenly false statement. --
talk) 17:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The games are not the subset; the protagonists are. The category is identifying a common property of all the items included. Diego (talk) 18:21, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Diego. This assessment has a minor problem: It contradicts with your original stance of "racing and abstract games" not feature female protagonists. You see, if one change the context from games to protagonist, those racing and abstract games stay out because the metonymy fails on them. (This might not be a problem with languages like French that allocate grammatical gender but in English, they are gender-agnostic.) From a neutral point of view, seeing a video game that is gender-free as such is a bias. Absence or presence of female protagonist only gains due significance when there is a matter of gender-sensitivity, not technicality. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite, I think their point there was that many Romantic languages (French, Spanish, whatever) assign gender to abstract objects. I don't see how that has anything to do with a protagonist, though. Ansh666 00:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and about your idea of split with "non-playable female protagonists" - the only such game I can think about right now is
talk) 18:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
There are a few others like Ico, Galatea or Facade. Instead of a split, it can be a non-strict
non-difussing subcategory. Diego (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Too few in "a few", really. The ratio of playable to unplayable is like 100:1 or more. --
talk) 06:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yup - that's why I'd find a separate subset useful, to better find those few exceptions more easily. Diego (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're interested in the subject so much: another such non-playable (and female) protagonist is in
talk) 11:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I still think that
diffusing in subcategories would be useful, but that doesn't require deleting the main category; and sub-categorizing by genre would be better than by the player-NPC axis. Thanks for the link! Diego (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
I think just "with non-playable protagonists" (as in: gender neutral) would make a better category in that case, if you believe it's useful (I have no opinion). Also I like I said below, a spearate category protagonists with customizable gender would make a better split, because it's potentially misleading (neither I nor no one else didn't notice it before) for readers to say it's just "female protagonists" when you can choose the gender - quite a lot of Western RPGs have this option, and some other games too. --
talk) 21:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
There's already "
talk) 08:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It seems though that the current contents of the category should be trimmed down. Games like Batman: Arkham City don't look like a "game featuring a female protagonist" in the same way that Tomb Raider, Cauldron or Baraduke. (Unless there's something about Batman that we've missed all these years...). This discussion seems to come from the category being populated with games whose female characters don't live up to protagonist. Diego (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Batman: Arkham City has
talk) 17:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Then the Catwoman campaign should be listed, not the whole game. I'll try to fix that by including a redirect in the category. Having "Batman: Arkham City" listed as a game with a female protagonist didn't help me find out about this campaign; as the Plot section didn't depict her as a protagonist. This shows that the category has some problems, but those can be fixed; overall, it allows navigating the topic to find female protagonists - so it serves its main purpose. (For example, I've learned today that Samus Aran was not the first human female protagonist in a video game; I couldn't have done that without the category or an equivalent list). Diego (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be if, it had a separate article. Let me help you find it within the article:
talk) 17:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
It was right there in the Guinness World Records book. I generally don't know much about the relative release dates of classic video games, as they arrived randomly to my country; a systematic list thus helps me to find out particular details better than article prose, which by its nature will be limited to report some particular details and not others. Diego (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was "in a mainstream videogame", maybe by "mainstream" they meant the first smash hit in the West. (Cauldron was also a hit, but it was a "computer game" when "video games" were console titles.) --
talk) 10:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
John Pack Lambert has already relaized his conderns were invalid, and the term "protagonist" is actually about
talk) 06:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Uh, I see the part where he said that, and I see you badgering him about it, but I didn't see him actually agreeing with you. And he hasn't changed his !vote yet either... Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sources to assert that some gender gap could exist in the video games. Therefore, a category "Video games featuring female protagonists" has been created. And now, we have the problem of how to categorize "drama board wikipedia" with respect to this criterion. It seems that including "drama board wikipedia" into the "with female protagonists" category hurts heavily the feelings of some characters who are featuring here. May be this could be alleviated by the creation of another category, something like "Video games featuring few female protagonists" that, indeed, would be more adapted to "drama board wikipedia". Pldx1 (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep per Niemti and extended discussion below, split per Diego, or rename and change scope per Thibbs waaaay below. I think it's a reasonable category to have, and the nomination rationale is pretty ridiculous. Ansh666 09:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename. This is clearly a topic of interest, as evidenced by the list of media articles given by Niemti below. It is arguably a more notable characteristic than which year the video game was released in, which no one would challenge is appropriate for a category. It might benefit from being renamed or having more clear criteria for inclusion though. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not a video game player (which leads to the possibility that I am misinformed) yet even I know that featured female protagonists are rare. Is it possible some are missing the word featured, and think the category is game with any females included? That wouldn't be much of a category. There might be some concern about defining which characters are featured, and which are merely background or incidental, but I'll leave that detail to others. It might be nice to live in a society where this distinction would be considered trivial, but we don't and our task is to describing the world we live in, not the world we wish to live in. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After posting, I read Protagonist, and realized the net is slightly narrower than i had envisioned. Multiple protagonists can exist, but it is not the case that all the major character are protagonists. However, that strengthens my support (although shifts the emphasis from "featured" to "protagonists").--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The discussion below and above is convincing. However, I have an additional argument. The purpose of category is not proving or disproving anything, but merely a convenience of navigation. If at least a few people who do a lot of work in the area (as for example, Niemti does) find a category very useful for their work, such cats should be kept even only for their convenience. But chances are, if this is something convenient for them, this will be also convenient for others who actually work in the subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. If the category is meant to help editors it's either hidden or --more appropriately for this case-- on the talkpage. What MVBW is suggesting is that this function as some sort of "Women In Gaming taskforce" tag, and that's an abuse of mainspace categories. --erachima talk 20:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the cat is solely for the use of editors, as opposed to readers, I would agree. It isn't. That editors find it useful is a plus, but as a non-hidden cat, its primary purpose is navigation. If I had any interest in video games, I could imagine being interested in which ones had female protagonists.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and diffuse into subcategories per Diego. The topic is clearly notable and, per
    WP:DEFINING. Gobōnobō + c 23:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep - the category concept so that it tracks Gender representation in video games. I could see a category directed to female leading character, but protagonists means leading character or one of the major characters (yes, I had to look it up),[1] so I can see what Codename Lisa is getting at in the nomination. Diego's and Gobōnobō's keep reasonings are solid and I agree with them. -- Jreferee (talk) 04:32, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Given that there exists significant debate and discussion about the cultural influence of video games and the impact of the medium's relative lack of female protagonists, this is a highly-useful category. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:52, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Our article Gender representation in video games shows that this is a notable topic, and sorting games by this criterium is a matter of academic and public interest. According to that article, "in a sample of 669 action, shooter, and role-playing games selected by EEDAR in 2012, only 24 (4%) had an exclusively female protagonist, and 300 (45%) provided the option of selecting one". So it's not as though this is a category that covers almost all video games.  Sandstein  09:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misinformation in the nomination
Misinformation in the nomination

The outlanish false claim: Hi. Almost all video games have female protagonists. In fact, the only video game without a female protagonist that I know of is Company of Heroes. We need a category called "Video games not featuring a female protagonist".

Now, the reality - see, for example:

And so on.

The current list (about 850 titles with articles on Wikipedia - out many thousands game articles) is pretty much definitive and there's not much more. I used the lists compiled by others as well as my own knowledge. Also this:

And no, I don't agree with the panic articles claiming it somehow a huge problem or something. Maybe in the way of "first world problems", and anyone who can play only as a person/creature of their own gender is pretty sexist themselves in my opinion. But, the point is these games are rare (and also lots of people are now suddenly interested in them). --

talk) 16:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]

  • Comment Niemti fails to understand the purpose of categories or the process of how WP decides whether they are kept or not. Niemti claims on my talk page that notability has nothing to do with categorizetion, ergo the mere (i.e., trivial) intersection of two concepts, even if the notability of the intersection is unestablished (because in Niemti's view it's irrelevant), is a basis to keep a category. Niemti is just plain wrong, but does provide an object lesson why we don't have Category:Beekeeping footballers just because we have Category:Beekeepers and Category:Footballers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it has nothing with
      talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
  • Comment Hello, guys. What I see in this section is chiefly caused by three elements: (a) disagreement over definition, (b) lack of due regard for our context and (c) sensational journalism. First,
    WP:PEACOCK
    !)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • By your logic, it is also non-neutral the statement "Almost all video games have female protagonists", which is the basis for the nomination. (Have you suggested there that we apply
    Wikipedia style guidelines to external sources like the Washington post?) Diego (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Hi. Apart from the fact that
    WP:NPOV applies to articles, not structural units of Wikipedia, there is nothing POV about an auto-generated list of articles. And, as I already explained, my nomination applies to article in Wikipedia, not the collective set of video games in existence. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What "two sides" in that? Multiple rather respected sources (and
    talk) 07:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Let me rephrase you: "it was just another absurd statement from me, as Modern Warfare 3 has no female protagonists and
    talk) 06:43, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • And it was still a really stupid and nonsensical strawman argument, and continuous refusal to read the definition of the term "
    talk) 10:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What do you disagree with? Why? It's not conducive to discussion if all you state is "I disagree". Ansh666 04:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Ansh. Did you say "conductive to discussion"? Which discussion? All I am seeing here are personal attacks, threats, allegations of strawman and
    bludgeoning the process
    . Niemti and I both worked on Final Fantasy VII articles. We both know how (un)true his statements in the last thread are. I have already elaborated why "I respectfully disagree"; if you are seeking witty impoliteness, I am afraid I must disappoint you.
Essentially, there is no reason for me to sweat it. While people like you come here and vote "Keep" with a very narrow definition of the word "protagonist", the category is growing in size by the hour, defying said definitions. So, I just unwatch this page and mark this category on my calendar to renominate in one year, when the issue of redundancy is so manifest that no one bothers to mention pro-feminism ideals. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa, whoa! I make a simple query (a bit blunt, but that's me), and get hit by that? Whatever happened to
WP:AGF? Feel free to leave this, I'm going to now because of the response you just gave here. Ansh666 07:34, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
This is the right approach - not the percentage of protagonists but the defining part. There are games that are in the mind of all as being defined by their main characters (Metroid, Tomb Raider with Lara Croft, Mass Effect where choosing the gender of Commander Shepard affects the games' content), that are covered in the media over and over by their strong female protagonists.
The category should list those games where having a female main role has been noted as such, not games where an ensemble of undifferentiated characters contains one female, as that wouldn't count as a "female protagonist" as identified by RS - except for ensembles of characters where the females have been described by reliable sources as a defining characteristic of the game. Diego (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This category did at already, it all about
talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
No, there are no "RS that make lists of games" for any game categories in Wikipedia. Categories are based simply on observation by eitors (to quote myself: "games set in 1997" or "games about drugs" or "games with 2.5D graphics" or whatever else in so many categories - not a SINGLE category anywhere is based on any "RS that make lists of games", every time it's based on the game itself, its plot and gameplay). --
talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Also, what constitutes "minority" is pretty absurd in this case - white people are a "minority" in Japan, and the Japanese are a minority in France. And I can't even think about just any "Games with Jewish protagonists" or "Games with African-American protagonists" at all - almost all games set on Earth have protagonists that are either white or Asian (or mixed white-Asian, like
talk) 09:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
There are also some very similar, like this (long-standing, no one objected for over 4 years now). --
talk) 06:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
And more precisely, the main playable character(s), not just any (and in very few cases, the non-playable character who is the real subject of the story). For example (the example which I used already), Sheva is optionally playable in RE5, but she's only Chris'
talk) 06:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Yeah, I would agree too that games like Balder's Gate, where you gain a party of mixed genders and species which you control, that doesn't make the game one with a female protagonist. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In BG the protagonist is the player's starting character and can be female (I myself played as a sorceress). In early Ultimas the
talk) 21:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment - I'm pretty sure there is sufficient RS coverage of the topic of playable female heroes to justify a full article as erachima suggested above, but that's an argument to create an article, not an argument to delete a category. It sounds like the basis of the nomination is that the category will be over-crowded because all but a handful of games feature female protagonists, but as Masem points out, "protagonist" in this context usually means a playable character. I think there is value to a category of games like Metroid, Tomb Raider, Super Princess Peach, Ms. Pacman, Barbie, etc. etc. that have all been covered by the RSes specifically on the topic of their varying approaches to the inclusion of a playable female main character. I think it might help to more clearly define the category - perhaps by changing the word "protagonist" to "playable main character" or "playable hero character" or something that would more clearly indicate that we're talking about games centrally starring playble female characters, and not just any game that includes a female. -Thibbs (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In extremely few cases (but they do exist), the protagonist is actually not a playable character. In more cases, the protagonist is also not a "hero" (but antihero or villain, there's quite a lot of games like that, especially crime games). "Protagonist" is what it is - a
talk) 06:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • To be fair, it's uncommon to find a good RS article on the history of female video game protagonists that fails to mention Ms. Pac-Man (along with the fact that she's not Miss or Mrs. Pac-Man). This kind of highlights the fact that female protagonists have historically been very rare. Are there any RSes that discuss the uncommon and progressive use of a female protagonist in Pokémon? Either way, the inclusion of one game or another isn't the point here. It doesn't really matter if Ms. Pac-Man or Pokémon are included or not. We're discussing whether the category is justifiable at all. We can delve into the requisite degree of female protagonism and tweak it however we need at any time and adjust category membership later. -Thibbs (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Protagonists are not equivalent to simply "playable characters", whoever told you such a thing was wrong. You can play as
talk) 11:07, 9 October 2013 (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:Provinces of the People's Republic of China

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Provinces of China. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom
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:Ansaldo aircraft

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: withdrawn. (
WP:NACD) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: The main article and category are
Ansaldo is ambiguous. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:43, 2 October 2013 (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 set in Newark, New Jersey

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:Films set in New Jersey. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary level of category specificity, Category:Films set in New Jersey works just fine.
Wha? 06:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
Trout slap and comment. Before nominating this category, you emptied it of the one category that was in it. I will also state that Films set in a city category aren't uncommon. Newark isn't a small city but how many films have been set there I don't know. Lean on Me I think was partially set there also....William 11:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added one, which I found rather easily at
    talk) 12:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Upmerge to Category:Films set in New Jersey. I have grave concerns about this type of category though. Man of Steel (film) is in Category:Films set in Kansas but not Category:Films set in Canada, when significant amounts of the film occur in Canada. I am not sure we have ever figured out an easy way to tell when films qualify for such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I haven't seen Man of Steel, but assuming what you say is true, it should be categorized Films set in Canada. Not too long ago I added Set in categories to several James Bond movie pages. There's an editor who does great work on these articles, but it slipped past him that there were small scenes in The Man With the Golden Gun and Casino Royale(2006 version) that were set in Beirut Lebanon(plus China and Macau) and Prague respectively. Omissions are innocent mistakes....William 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
World War Z is probably an example of another key question. If a film is set in lots and lots of places, is it really set in any? I have to wonder if the setting of a film is defining to it past maybe 3 locations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2012 the movie was set in many locations. China, California, Las Vegas, Paris, Wyoming, Japan, Washington D.C., India, Canada, Nepal and London. If it has a scene set in so and so, it was set there....William 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the general view. Otherwise
Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman would be in Category:TV shows set in Kansas, because there are 2 episodes (out of about 80) that are primarily set in Kansas, plus a few more that are set in Kansas partly. The pilot episode has 3 significant scenes in Kansas for example. We would also put it in Category:Television shows set in Paris, based on 1 scene in 1 episode. The Kansas argument would probably work if we had an article on the episode, "The Green, Green Glow of Home" and "Tempus Fugitive", but it does not work for the TV show as a whole. The TV show is clearly belonging in our non-exitent category Category:Televisions shows set in the State of New Troy, since over 95% of the TV show happens there. 1 scene in a TV show or film is not enough to make something set there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2013 (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:North-West Frontier Province cricketers

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) 03:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article name Khyber Pakhtunkhwa cricket team (following rename of province). Jevansen (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and the longstanding precedent over alumni of merged or renamed colleges, by which we treat alumni of the predecessor as having attended the successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2013 (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:Snow tubing areas in the United States

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) 03:20, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of that resort. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_19#Category:Snow_tubing_areas_in_Canada. For info: I've checked a sample of the articles in these categories and all are under Category:Ski areas and resorts in the United States (or the article text made no mention of snow tubing in which case I've removed it from the category). DexDor (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator's analysis. --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, if one looks at category contents you see that these are alpine ski resorts/hills that (may) offer some snow tubing along with other winter sliding activities. It's not defining enough for this category. If indeed there are resorts or parks that are specifically for snow tubing then for now let's group them under a top level snow tubing category.
    talk) 15:59, 3 October 2013 (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:Pearce Robinson

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) 03:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Okay, the
talk) 02:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete -- My sincerest apologies. I'm so trying to fit into adhering to Wikipedia's standards with my edits and so on that I look at other pages and try to make sure that it reflects that. I just read through
    WP:RS understand now. Thanks again, you may delete. In future how does one go about deleting mistakes such as thing in future? I've been working on Reema Harrysingh-Carmona page. Ideally I would have liked to start it in a sandbox and work on it there, but I forgot how to create a new sandbox and sometimes all these mistakes contributes to problems. But please do delete the misplaced category Capture2015 (talk) 18:44, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete No need for a category with one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:38, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obviously. I'm as dubious as Peterkingiron about notability on the main article, too, incidentally, but having nominated the previous deleted article I decided to give the author some space to develop it and let others judge it, to avoid any appearance of bias. Begoon talk 08:37, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_2&oldid=1141927892"