Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 27 December 29 >

December 28[edit]

Category:Video games featuring non-playable protagonists[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 noted previous discussion led to a deletion (by me), but I believe that discussion was actually mooted by this one, so there's no problem with different outcomes. -Splash - tk 22:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created in advance of an earlier discussion closing to delete a similar category. I don't think "non-playable protagonists" is defining, and indeed, the definition of non-playable protagonists seems quite muddled in the literature. In several articles I have seen, the protagonist is always considered to be whoever the player is controlling, while there may be other main, but non-playable, characters. But I don't think this is defining. For example, BioShock Infinite is in this category, but our own wikipedia article claims that the player controls the protagonist. As a game evolves the role of the various players and their importance may vary, so ultimately this is a subjective categorization. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:32, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - "non-playable protagonist" makes no sense as a concept. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FFS, "our own wikipedia article" is bullshit then, protagonist =/= player character. Bioshock Infinite: http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/08/07/how-playing-as-elizabeth-changes-bioshock-infinite (including: When we asked Jeffrey about Elizabeth taking the spotlight, she insisted that Liz has been the protagonist of Infinite all along, but admitted that this story will focus on her in a way the main game wasn’t able to. “First I would say that, being the horribly biased person that I am, Elizabeth was the lead in Infinite,” she told us.). Plus multiple articles by third-party sources, such as http://www.gamefront.com/he-doesnt-row-how-bioshock-infinite-isnt-bookers-story/ (As a player, yours is a supporting role, and your input isn’t necessary to the conclusion of the story, outside of the fact that you must survive to see it.) Whatever the hell "makes no sense as a concept"? Protagonist, protagonist, protagonist. And KEEP, OF COURSE. --Niemti (talk) 23:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you, I am aware of what a protagonist is. And the idea that a character that one cannot play can be the protagonist of a video game remains, as a concept, nonsensical. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but it does make sense. A protagonist character is one that influences the plot, takes decisions and, in doing so, unravels the story told by the game. That this role is adopted in most video games by the avatar of the player is a convention, but not a necessity; this category is for those (admittedly rare) video games that subvert this gaming stereotype and have characters that drive the plot and take decisions, even when they are not controlled by the player's actions. If you don't believe that this is possible, just play Galatea or Façade and see how you could not call their NPCs "protagonists", when everything in those games is about what happens to those characters - and the player is a mere shadow, of which little is known or said, with the only role to start cues so that the NPCs can tell their stories. There's also the case of puzzle games like Cut the Rope, Lemmings or Tamagotchi, where the player does not directly control any character, the only possible protagonists would be the creatures that inhabit the game world, depending on how complex is their story-line. Diego (talk) 19:28, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The criteria is explicit and precise: the term protagonist has been clearly defined for a long while now, and whether a character is playable or not is generally a matter of fact. This also is also justified because it is informative and interesting, highlighting a unique, specific type of video game storytelling. For instance: the protagonist of Amy (video game) is unambiguously Amy (she's even the title!), and yet she is certainly not a playable character is any way. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 04:27, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Title character" does not equal "protagonist" and the protagonist of Amy is Lana. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:52, 29 December 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:People from Bellwood, Pennsylvania[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries. ...William 22:17, 28 December 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:People from Petersburg, Pennsylvania[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: RELIST is unavoidable here. -Splash - tk 22:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 4 entries ...William 22:14, 28 December 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:Brotherhood_(2006_TV_series)[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a category. Just a TV show. User:ApathyMonger
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT: only 3 articles, and no reasonable prospect of growth.
    (BTW, the nom is wrong to claim that this is "not a category". It may not be a category worth keeping, but it is a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 6 January 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:Tom Denney[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. -Splash - tk 22:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small eponymous category not needed for the contents. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:44, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 3 subcats, 2 articles = 5 items, which meets my bare minimum. (There are also 3 redirects, which I don't count for these purposes). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh come on. One of the two articles is for the subject of the category. Are you suggesting with a straight face that the category is needed to navigate to its own subject? The other article is his bandmate who is linked in Denney's article and the myriad other articles in the structure. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 04:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These categories should have a noticeable number of direct articles. Otherwise we get the odd inter-locking situation we had where Judy Garland was in Category:Liza Menelli and Liza Menelli was in Category:Judy Garland. It really did not work for either, but definitely not for Judy Garland. Her fame and notability is not at all connected with Liza. The fact that Liza first appeared in a film as a child held by Judy, might argue for that categorization, but it is still stretching things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 24 January 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:Andrew Wade[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small eponymous category not needed for the meager contents. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:42, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Two subcategories which are already interlinked. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:25, 1 January 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:Recipients of the Order of Idris I (Libya)[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It could be that I'm misinterpreting WP:OC#AWARD, or that there's a giant exception not spelled out there. I came across this category as one of many at Haile Selassie, almost none of which I suspect can truly be called "defining." With this order in particular, we don't even have a corresponding article. And while I can't find any relevant information on it on external sites, I strongly suspect it's no longer awarded, and that WP:SMALLCAT could apply as well. BDD (talk) 20:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I sometimes argue for the retnetion of national awards given to citizens, becasue they indicate that the nation recognises the notability of that citizen. However, the content indicates that this is an award by one state to the head of state (or of government) of another, given for diplomatic reasons to a person whose notability is obvious. This is a variety of category clutter of a kind we depreciate. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:30, 29 December 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:Blart[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. With the recent deletion of over half the contents (non-notable character articles) the category has become small with no chance of expansion. The three novels of the series are all linked together through text links. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:04, 28 December 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:Advanced practice nursing journals[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:Nursing journals. However, I have some concern that there is a touch of inward-looking thought from CfD here, without really listening to the growth arguments. Today, for example, there are 8 articles in the category, although it does seem that some of them are slightly unexpected. Therefore, I would qualify my closure here as "without prejudice" to allow the fact that the principal upmerge argument might come to be invalid over time. -Splash - tk 22:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match main article and category name jsfouche ☽☾Talk 19:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Nursing journals. The cat only has 2 entries with not much to be added to it in the foreseeable future. The Nursing journals category has several subcats with only 1 or 2 entries and those could also easily be upmerged (per WP:SMALLCAT) and would certainly not result in an overpopulated category that would need diffusion. --Randykitty (talk) 14:08, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- No need to split nursing journals. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The category does have potential for growth (WP:SMALLCAT is for "no potential for growth"). There are several notable journals that do not have articles yet, but I have them on my To Do list. Per WP:SMALLCAT, this is a part of a subcategorization scheme similar to medical specialty journals. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 19:37, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no reason for nursing journals (which are far less numerous than medical journals) should mirror the categorization tree of the latter. --Randykitty (talk) 11:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain what you mean. WP:SMALLCAT is your rationale, but it speaks of "no potential for growth" and that clearly does not apply here. And just because the numbers are less than another subject does not invalidate using a categorization tree. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 17:02, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Nursing journals, without prejudice to recreation if and when there are at least 6 articles to populate the category. This 2-article category is not useful for navigation, if it can easily be re-created if Jsfouche does create new articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have struck the qualification on my !vote. The category has indeed been expanded, but I am not persuaded that the expansion has been helpful, because it seems to include a number of journals which give some coverage to advanced practice, without making that their sole focus. This suggests that expansion of the category will dilute its relevance, so I don't think that this category will assist navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But it will assist in navigation. There is a need to classify journals that are geared toward advanced practice nurses. These journals often contain information specific to APRNs as well as generalist nurses in various specialties. Not all specialty journals contain content relative to APRNs, hence the need for this category. It does not dilute the relevance, but rather clarify which journals contain content relevant to APRNs. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 12:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I worked on these today, and there are now 7 articles in the category. I will add more later. My "shortcut" applet for finding ISSNs is not working, so I have to go back and add them to a few of the new articles. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 05:26, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I saw that you have increased the size of the cat, but I am still not convinced. Several nursing journal articles are now in more than one cat, inflating category sizes even though the rationale is not always very clear and sometimes seems to be somewhat forced. For example, the journal Geriatric Nursing is now in Category:General nursing journals and Category:Advanced practice nursing journals. If the categorization of nursing journals is supposed to become similar to the one for medical journals, I assume that soon there will also be a "Gerontology nursing journals" cat added. Another example is Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health, which is categorized in "Advanced practice nursing journals", but not in Category:Obstetrical nursing journals. Many other articles in the "Advanced practice nursing journals" category seem to be rather general and it is far from clear that they couldn't just as well be categorized as "General nursing journals" or "nursing journals". The addition of image files of journal covers makes the cats look even larger, but is IMHO incorrect (cover images are not journals). For all other journals in the Category:Academic journals tree (including scientific and medical journals), cover image files are categorized as Category:Academic journal covers and even though large, I see no practical reason to break up that cat or start categorizing files as articles. --Randykitty (talk) 16:42, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you elaborate on "gone to far"? How is it overly narrow? If a journal contains content about a specialty, how is that too narrow? Take a look at medical journals. They are divided by specialty as well. The scope of a journal often states it is designed for a certain specialty. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 12:40, 25 January 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:Nursing scholarships[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:49, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only had one article, which was moved to nursing education (which this was a sub cat of). jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the rationale laid out by the nominator. However, I have reversed his/her removal of the category from the single article as being out of process. In future, nominate the category for deletion or merger without emptying it. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Only 1 entry, unnecessary subcat. --Randykitty (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Populate -- I thought this was going to be an award winners category, but it is a list of awards made. None of the recipients are notable, but the one article is worth having. If this category could be better populated we might keep it, we might be worth keeping this, but not for one article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:36, 29 December 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:Pakistan Post[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:Postal system of Pakistan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category for one article, of the same name, that is already in the parent category Category:Postal system of Pakistan. I cannot see any other possible entries that could not be accommodated appropriately in the current parent category. ww2censor (talk) 11:08, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All the items that have been added to this category by the creator of the category can be accommodated perfectly well in the parent category. They certainly should not normally be in both the parent category AND the sub-category, a fact the uploader probably does not realise. ww2censor (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to the current parent cat.--Lenticel (talk) 02:27, 31 December 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:1917 Russian Revolution[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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to have parallel category trees for one topic: the head article Russian Revolution covers the revolutions of 1917. Other "Russian revolutions" (note the lower case) are commonly known by other names. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:52, 28 December 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:Carry On films[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.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This change was contested at WP:CFD/S on the grounds that the current name is clear and more "natural sounding". However, I think that appropriate parenthetical disambiguation per Carry On (franchise) and Category:Carry On (franchise) removes all ambiguity while still sounding natural—I read the proposed title as "Carry On franchise films", or "films of the Carry On franchise", which I prefer to just "Carry On films". (Category creator not notified using Template:Cfd-notify because: inactive) -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the main article. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:22, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- They are normally referred to collectively by the present name, so that the insertion of a disambiguator is completely unnecessary. A disambiguator is presumably needed for the franchise, becasue Category:Carry On might be ambiguous, but that does not mean that unambiguous subcategories need to be renamed. Here the rest of the franchise is merely a spin-off from the films series. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the main article (Carry On (franchise)) and the main category (Category:Carry On (franchise)). Armbrust The Homunculus 22:22, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the current title is not ambiguous. Tim! (talk) 11:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per keepers. Usual name - the non-film parts of the franchise (stage & tv) were minor and never now seen, whereas the films remain popular with discerning Anglophone publics worldwide. Johnbod (talk) 09:54, 7 January 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:Best Picture Academy Award winners[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is very awkwardly worded and never actually used JDDJS (talk) 04:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that most of the similar categories in the parent cat follow the same current naming convention. And I think your suggestion is even more awkward than the current name. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 10:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- This is one of the few cases where we do allow award winner categories. Looking at the content, it is mostly winning films. It may be necessary to purge a few of the list articles into the parent, as these are not directly about films. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about a move to Category:Winners of the Academy Award for Best Picture and, if acceptable, the rest can be named similarly? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:17, 30 December 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_December_28&oldid=1138397774"