Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16[edit]

Category:American peoples culturally isolated[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 18:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category was created by someone whose second-language is English, so that probably explains the title. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think there is a clear consensus on this topic enough to justify the categories. The idea of "cultural isolation" is defined differently by different people. I do not think we gain anything from categorizing people in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John Pack Lambert. Also, there is no series of categories of this type and is taking categorisation too far. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. How would one define 'culturally isolated' in an empirical fashion? Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:10, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:General Headquarters Air Force Airfield[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger One ping only 18:15, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Brought up on speedy without the "the." I believe the definite article is needed.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of the speedy nomination
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:Religious cosmology[edit]

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. If a further merge is needed, then a WP:BOLD nomination can be made. The Bushranger One ping only 18:16, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a duplicate of an already existing category. Editor2020 (talk) 22:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Chinese convicts[edit]

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 to delete. People who raised objections gave reasoned explanations for why deleting would be a problem. delldot ∇. 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the general move of PRC categories to "China" equivalents.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Unlike the next two noms, this is unobjectionable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Chinese history is replete with notable criminals and prisoners due to the 4000 year history of such things, so requires periodisation -- 70.24.247.127 (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Again, the history of China didn't begin with the PRC. It is important to tag the correct entity with the correct actions. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People's Republic of China designated terrorist organizations[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per most other subcategories of Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator, and the general transition of PRC categories to "China" categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of China[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 18:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have merged nearly all categories covering the People's Republic of China to their China or Chinese equivalent.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least for now. The category is parent to Category:Treaties of the Republic of China‎, which covers both China 1912-49 and Taiwan. That category needs to be split, before there can be a merger. Furthermore, I suspect PRC renounced various treaties of the previous regime. Accordingly we need a PRC category, currnetly a subcateogry or the China one. Since the present government of Taiwan claims to be a continuation of pre-1949 mainland republic, it will presumably have continued to hold itslef bound by the earlier treaties, so that perhaps my suggested split may not quite work. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peterkingiron. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose treaties are done by specific countries and should be so named in categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Again, the category needs to have proper periodization. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People's Republic of China intellectual property law[edit]

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 to delete. This was a tough one since there was so little participation. I also looked at the other PRC discussions on this page closed by others. I think given the context one objection, based on the concern that there's the need to preserve the distinction, is enough to block deleting for. delldot ∇. 22:46, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cleanup after the close of this nomination, per all other subcategories of Category:Intellectual property law by jurisdiction.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- Was patent law etc. the same in pre-1949 China as in the present PRC? I expect there was no intellectual property law in the early part of the Communist era. Accordingly, it seems to me that the two are not quite the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as I can tell, we don't have any articles on that subject, so the distinction doesn't matter much.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, As far as I can tell there isn't a western form of IP laws until quite late in the process. However, there is a distinction between the law in mainland China and the law in nationalist china. This distinction should be preserved. Keep. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we have decided that China/Chinese are the preferred and common way to refer to the PRC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people of German descent by occupation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. delldot ∇. 17:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Discussion here in the last year to two has set the precedent this kind categorization is WP:OC. As a result, this tree has only two subcategories and they should be upmerged.
  • Propose upmerging
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:Alphas characters[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not needed just for the character list. Individual characters unlikely to become notable but if they do the category can be re-created. Buck Winston (talk) 21:31, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This probably arises from a wish to have an article on each character. However, as a matter of ptractice such artiles invariably get meerged back to the artile on the series of a list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no reason to have this as a one article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it can be recreated if it is decided each char needs an article, but I don't see that happening soon. --Qetuth (talk) 13:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wallsend Boys Club players[edit]

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. The debate is split evenly between people who think that a youth club is not a big enough deal to have a category about and people who think that this one is. It looks like consensus to delete this has not been reached. delldot ∇. 17:15, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Info here is too trivial for a category, better kept as a list on Wallsend Boys Club article page. There is no category tree for sportspeople according to what youth club they belonged to. Mayumashu (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in Wallsend Boys Club, where there is already a list. From the headnote, it appears that this is effectively an alumni category, based on the club for which professional footballers played as boys. This seems too trivial to me for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the Wallsend Boys Club has received significant coverage as a youth club which has produced many top players - testified by the number of entries at over 50 notable people! - and therefore remains valid. GiantSnowman 10:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:25, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - as User:GiantSnowman says, this club produced many notable players, many of whom went on to play football for their country. This category is no different in nature to the alumni categories; if someone's school is worthy of a category, then why isn't the club where they first learnt their footballing skills. -- Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 05:46, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - Youth clubs aren't really that big a deal. Some of them produce more professionals than others, such as Senrab F.C., but that doesn't mean they should have a category. A list of Wallsend Boys Club players who went on to become professional footballers should suffice, IMO. – PeeJay 17:30, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some youth clubs are a big deal, such as this one, for attracting and developing top-level players. The category serves as an aid to navigation across such articles and serve as a companion to any list of these players. Alansohn (talk) 18:44, 27 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WFAN[edit]

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:WFAN (AM). The Bushranger One ping only 18:17, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better to add disambiguation to aid navigation for those not familiar with this radio station. Mayumashu (talk) 15:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:WFAN (AM) to match title of parent article. Issues of ambiguity should be addressed in mainspace, not here, unless there is a specific conflict, which does not exist here. As the article title is WFAN (AM), we have a better title that also helps make the contents clearer. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:WFAN (AM) per Alansohn --Qetuth (talk) 13:23, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Miscellaneous card games[edit]

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:Card games. User:Hans Adler's concern is noted; if an article merged to Category:Card games is already adequately categorized in an appropriate subcategory or subcategories of Category:Card games, the article may of course be removed from Category:Card games. There are only three articles being merged, so it won't be a terribly time consuming issue to resolve. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:32, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category claims to house all card games that don't fit into a type category. I don't think there's any use categorizing by what a game is not.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel very strongly about this and currently I am not even active on Wikipedia (this post is an exception). But I created this category for two reasons. (1) Users interested in card game research or wishing to create a new card game with unusual mechanisms are likely to use Category:Card games by mechanism or objective to get an overview of the various types of card games. For these people, the really odd games that cannot be categorised otherwise are particularly interesting. This category puts them all together, so they can be found easily. (2) As soon as several similar games accumulate in this category, it is obvious that one needs to look in the literature and on the web for a term describing them, which can then be used for a new, more specific subcategory of Card games by mechanism.
Putting games directly under Card games by mechanism is obviously not an option. I can think of only two ways to achieve the same goals without this category: (1) Creating the more specific subcategories right away, even when they will contain only a single element. This is pretty bad from a usability standpoint, and it also means that typically we will have either clumsy names such as "Sedma-like card games" or "Ristikontra-like card games" (potentially misleading when we don't know whether other games fitting this category ever existed; also, which to choose in this case?) or descriptive names with OR issues (e.g. "suitless rank-trick games"). (2) Replacing the category by a list article with OR issues. Hans Adler 10:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the 4 merge !votes below: Putting the game articles in question directly into Category:Card games is certainly not the solution in this case because the relevant subcategory is Category:Card games by mechanism or objective. All card games are (or should be) also categorised in the appropriate subcategories of Category:Card games by national origin, Category:Card games by number of players and Category:Card games by type of deck. If it is standard practice to put individual articles in such categories, then merging into Category:Card games by mechanism or objective is fine by me, but I doubt it, as it would appear rather odd. Is there some standard way to solve this kind of problem? I am sure I have seen many other "X by Y" categories, so this should have come up before. Hans Adler 15:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand the categorisation scheme so I can better understand your concerns.
My initial question is: what "mechanism or objective" do each of these card games fall under, that you feel that that is the appropriate cat to merge them to, if merged at all. - jc37 07:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All card games, even 52 Pickup, can be classified according to some mechanism and/or objective (the line between mechanisms and objectives is blurry) in the same way that species can be classified by features into categories such as "birds", "dinosaurs", "worms", "vertebrates", "insects", "spiders", "ants" etc. There is always at least one that plays a major role in a game, but there can also be secondary features. The problem with unusual obscure games is that sometimes no researcher (such as David Parlett, John McLeod or Michael Dummett) has classified them yet and so there is no category yet for its main feature. Classification by mechanism/objective captures how Bridge, Pinochle and Skat are distant relatives of each other but completely unrelated to Rummy or Poker, and the latter two are also completely unrelated to each other. Even though Bridge, Rummy and Poker use the same deck and are often played with the same number of players.
But I just realised that two of the games that have been in the category for some time don't belong there: Sedma and Ristikontra, though definitely unusual, are just atypical trick-taking games and have already been categorised as such. I am removing them from Category:Miscellaneous card games as they already have places elsewhere in the hierarchy under Category:Card games by mechanism or objective. Hans Adler 21:30, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, maybe this wasn't clear enough. Consider Category:Plants. It corresponds very roughly to Category:Card games. Its subcategories Category:Plant taxonomy, Category:Plants by year of formal description and Category:Plants by habitat correspond roughly to Category:Card games by mechanism or objective, Category:Card games by number of players and Category:Card games by national origin. In either case we have three orthogonal classification schemes.
If tomorrow we discover 2 plants on Mars, 3 on Venus, 1 on Jupiter and 2 equally weird ones on Earth, all defying conventional taxonomy, then they won't fit anywhere into Category:Plant taxonomy. Until biologists can agree how to classify them, they will most-likely get a new catch-all subcategory of Category:Plant taxonomy. The corresponding discovery for card games has already been made, and so the corresponding subcategory already exists. It may have to be deleted to follow some rules that were not made for such cases, but if that happens, it makes no sense to put the Mars plants directly in Category:Plants when the categorisation by habitat (Mars caves) and year of formal description (2012) is actually no problem at all. And putting them directly into Category:Plant taxonomy would only be justified because the articles described the taxonomic problems and disputes. For card games this doesn't work because for odd games we can be glad if we have any reliable sources at all on odd games and they are almost surely not going to discuss taxonomy. Hans Adler 23:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think I understand.
So let me try to convey the problem as presumably seen by those below.
It's become fairly consistent to merge (though sometimes rename or delete) categories that have indefinite words in the category name, like "other" or "miscellaneous". In most cases, Upmerge is typically the result. However, in this case, this is an X by Y category, which are typically to be kept as container categories, with few to no non-category members. So in that case, the Upmerge skips this "level" in the hierarchy/tree. So in this case, the next step "up" is Category:Card games.
So at this point, I think if you would like to keep all card games "represented" or "grouped" at this level, then we'll need to come up with a clearer or more specific rename than "misc." Any ideas? - jc37 01:03, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot for your help. After such a long Wikipedia abstinence I feel I got really poor at this kind of discussion.
How about something like "Card games with unusual mechanisms or objectives"? That would be a slightly broader category, but it would be even more useful for the purposes I explained. It would hold every game which features a dominating mechanism or objective that does not fit under any of the subcategories of Category:Card games by mechanism or objective -- even if it also has another mechanism or objective for which such a subcategory exists. Hans Adler 10:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I have to admit, when I initially saw your username I did a double-take : )
And that name is better, but "unusual" begs the immediate question: "according to who?"
Any chance there are references referring to this, which could help? - jc37 14:34, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt it. The best place for something like this would be in David Parlett's books, but I haven't seen a chapter on the seriously odd cases in any of them. There is a precedent for "miscellaneous" on John McLeod's site: http://www.pagat.com/class/ (generally considered reliable for card games). I don't think such accidental word choices should dictate our content, though it may have influenced me originally.
Glad to hear my Wikipedia boykott didn't go completely unnoticed. I have broken down recently and started doing some work on the Interlingua Wikipedia. If there is anything that can me draw back into the English Wikipedia, then it'll probably be card games, but I still hope that this is going to be an exception. A few months ago I wouldn't even have seen the notification on my talk page. Hans Adler 22:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, setting aside the rename gor a moment, looking at the three members in question, individually, I think I'm leaning towards:
What do you think? - jc37 01:38, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
52 Pickup is already in Category:Two-player card games, so it makes no sense to put it in the top level of Category:Card games. Which should be empty anyway. The main reason it never is is that the editors categorising new articles always put stuff there so it can be properly subcategorised.
Your idea for categorising Dixit (card game) is interesting but not obvious. Category:Matching card games would be just as (little) convincing to me. A pedantic editor could block either categorisation on verifiability grounds, but both categorisations work for me if necessary.
But I am pretty sure that Sequence (game) doesn't fit at all into Category:Competitive patience card games. The closest relative I can think of is Bingo, which is of course not a card game. For some reason we have Wikipedia has no category for round games yet (card games with no typical number of players) and I am unsure about the national origin, so at the moment this is actually a candidate for moving to the top level. For what it's worth, John McLeod classifies this type of game under "Miscellaneous games" [1] and David Parlett does not appear to have covered a similar game. I am tempted to claim that "miscellaneous game" is a verifiable technical term. I would consider this to be resorting to absurd bureaucratic pedantry as the only viable defence against absurd bureaucratic pedantry. But this approach only makes things worse because it contributes to this ridiculous culture.
I now remember why I stopped my involvement with the English Wikipedia. It's no fun fighting against a bureaucratic system that has lost track of what we are supposed to be doing here. This is a complete waste of time. If I am not even writing articles anymore, why should I deal with this crap? Hans Adler 07:45, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was merely attempting to come up with options to try to achieve what you seem to wish. If you have other targets, I welcome your thoughts.
And incidentally, when you said: "bureaucratic pedantry" - I have to admit, you made me smile : )
This isn't bureaucracy, it's precision in naming. We have to be as specific as possible, since, in most cases, the name of a category is also its inclusion criteria. And so as currently named, Category:Miscellaneous card games, technically is an "all-inclusive" category. since technically every card game could justifiably be placed there, despite what your intentions may be.
That said, verifiable reliable sources, trumps opinion. So if that term is well-explained on the category page, with links to the references, this category could probably be kept. (Honestly, I would think you would be one of the last people I should have to explain V vs. OR, to.)
I'm looking at the reference and it states: "If my classification of card games by mechanism were perfect, there would perhaps be no games in this category. In practice it is inevitable that games will show up which do not fit into a pre-existing scheme. Traditional games which do not seem to fit elsewhere will be collected here, in the hope that it will eventually become clear how they can best be incorporated into existing or new groups of games.". In such an instance on Wikipedia however, prior consensus is to UpMerge, rather than create a "misc" category for such things. And while consensus can change, looking below, it doesn't look like it has.
I'm still trying to think of a rename possibility, but can't think of anything.
As for the rest, this is discussion, and I don't think you can say I haven't tried to engage with you, with an open mind. Again, I'm fairly certain you understand the consensus process, and how things are determined through discussion.
Anyway, I'm still open to discussion, and would welcome your thoughts/ideas concerning this. - jc37 11:10, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Card games. Words like "miscellaneous" should be avoided in category names as imprecise. If a card game doesn't fit into an existing sub-category then it can go in the general category. The proposed use for the category, grouping otherwise non-similar card games together so they can be put into a new sub-cat if enough similar game articles are generated, is a proper use for the head category. Buck Winston (talk) 20:33, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Card games. If they cannot be categorised into a specific subcat, they should be in the parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Card games. We do not do "other" categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Parent cat does the job just fine. Daughter cat in this case is unnecessary. Benkenobi18 (talk) 10:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Card games. It is not so large that they will be lost there, and in effect what we are currently doing is categorising them by what they are not (ie, all the other mechanisms). --Qetuth (talk) 13:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I explained above why that doesn't work. I don't mind much if this category gets deleted, but just voting with the crowd on things you don't understand, even after someone has pointed out why the crowd is wrong, does not help Wikipedia. As should have been clear from what I said above, the reason why Category:Card games is almost empty is that it should really be totally empty because it is heavily subcategorised and each of our hundreds of card game articles fits into various subcategories. Hans Adler 23:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Joshuu Sasori[edit]

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. The Bushranger One ping only 18:18, 23 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category overlaps with the "Female Convict Scorpion series" category, it refers to the same thing, and the name is not in English, also not correctly romanized by Wikipedia MOS:JAPAN standards. Thus this category serves no useful purpose and is in error. JoshuSasori (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_16&oldid=1090390768"