Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 1 January 3 >

January 2[edit]

Category:Arce administration personnel[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 or merge, therefore rename as nominated. (That could have been a speedy nomination under WP:C2E.) – Fayenatic London 12:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Properly distinguish category with Category:Aniceto Arce administration personnel Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:29, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Fair enough, that would be nearly equivalent to deletion in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it. While it may be relatively empty for now, all vice ministers, ambassadors, and other non-cabinet members belong in it, as is the case with similar categories for U.S. presidential administrations. I'll work to fill it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2022 (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:Dark ages[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 tending towards "keep". – Fayenatic London 09:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: capitalise as proper noun.

Nominator's rationale: to agree with Dark Ages (historiography).

Nominator's rationale: to agree with Dark Ages (historiography), but in lower case. [Option C added 11:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC).]

This follows a speedy renaming proposal by Brandmeister, which I believe needs a full discussion.

copy of speedy discussion
Comment Brandmeister a full discussion might be better to establish whether dark ages is a proper noun per WP:NCCAPS. The category had Dark Ages (historiography) linked with a cat main template, but I changed the link to cat more as the article focuses on one Dark Age. TSventon (talk) 13:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the target to Dark Ages (historiography) per C2D, though the parenthetical disambiguation may be hypercorrect. Brandmeistertalk 14:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still think a full discussion would be useful. "Dark Ages (historiography)" is about the use of Dark Ages to describe the Early Middle Ages, which is only one part of this category. TSventon (talk) 14:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind in that case. Brandmeistertalk 15:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

TSventon (talk) 20:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Option B seems an obvious choice, to be speedied per WP:C2D. However, if this is supposed to be only about early medieval western Europe, in line with the eponymous article, only two articles will qualify, the eponymous article and Dark Ages (Europe). So then it becomes a matter of deletion per WP:SMALLCAT. And if we take Dark Ages a lot broader (cf current category content) the category should also be deleted, but this time per WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle Brandmeister I am leaning towards a new Option C I have added, "Dark ages (historiography)". According to "Dark Ages (historiography)", "The "Dark Ages" is a term for the Early Middle Ages or Middle Ages in Western Europe", however that article is criticised at length on its talk page. It mentions other dark ages in the "Modern scholarly use" section, but not in the lead. "Dark Ages" is capitalised as a proper noun when it refers to the Early Middle Ages, but when "Dark ages" refers to a group of periods, it should not be. WP:SHAREDNAME does not apply because being a dark age is a defining feature and should be discussed in the article, e.g. the Parthian Dark Age "is called a "Dark Age" due to a lack of clear information on the events of this period in the empire". Dark Ages is a disambiguation page including historiographic and other uses. Hence the category needs to be disambiguated as "Category:Dark ages (historiography)". TSventon (talk) 11:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B I think Dark Ages in this context should always be capitalized as a proper name, regardless of the period it refers to (being a specialized term in historiography). Per Dark Ages, the two primary historiographic meanings are medieval European ages and Byzantine Dark Ages. Anything that potentially does not belong to those categories can be purged. A subcategory Category:Byzantine Dark Ages could be created. Brandmeistertalk 12:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added a notice at Talk:Dark_Ages_(historiography). TSventon (talk) 14:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B, though A or C would be improvements that I could live with. This should not have been attempted as a speedy - the whole subject is inherently controversial. A category note would be a good addition. I don't agree with deletion on WP:SHAREDNAME grounds at all, and am absolutely against restricting it to the Early Middle Ages. Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C in lower case because the capital version is a proper noun and the category is a catch-all of multiple dark ages. Wikipedia is largely avoiding use of "Dark Ages" as a description of European history anywhere in the 400-1500 period. However, there are some other use cases such as Greek etc.. that have more support. The term is of periodization and thus historiography, but the historiography article only concerns the 400-1500 range, so for most use cases it's not actually the main article. I don't think Dark ages (periodization) is much better. There may be no perfect answer I can live with historiography. -- GreenC 16:02, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C conveniently circumvents WP:SHAREDNAME and is thus the only way that the category can be kept at all, per my earlier comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SHAREDNAME is just not an issue here - there is a very clear shared historical or historiographic concept here, which has given the name, even if the degree to which the various examples are currently believed to have actually had a "Dark Age" varies a lot. Note Category:Golden ages (metaphor) - the rather bizarre name taken from the main article, inappropriately imo. Johnbod (talk) 04:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A -- The content refers to several different Dark Ages in history, not just the post-Roman (or late antique) period, which is the sole subject of the potential main article of the other two options, Dark Ages (historiography), which has an "other uses" hatnote referring to others. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C per GreenC. The content at Dark_Ages_(historiography) on other dark ages is easy to miss, so it could be given its own section and a sentence in the lead. TSventon (talk) 17:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option C per GreenC. The proposals of TSventon are aslo reasonable. --Just N. (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it at Category:Dark ages, since the category contains a bunch of different ages described as dark. I'm not seeing what the basic reason is here to move it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it per Dicklyon; option C otherwise; it is not a proper name, it's just a descriptive apellation like "colonial era". Several other things of this sort need down-casing, e.g. "Space Age" > "space age".  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave it The category contains different "dark ages". Consequently, the category name cannot be a proper name, even if that which it contains are. This seems to be a back-door way of changing the scope of the category from dark ages generally to Early Middle Ages or Middle Ages in Western Europe (quoting from Dark Ages (historiography)). If there is a wish to change the scope of the category, there should be a discussion to find a consensus to do that. This is not the forum to do that. Historiography is the study of how we study history. It is a term that is sometimes misused and abused to refer to "works of history" on a topic as if it is erudite jargon. Adding "historiography" as a disambiguation (in its true sense) is again a change of scope. I have no doubt that the "dark ages" generally (a significant majority of cases) is synonymous with the European Middle ages (or the earlier part of that) but whether it is actually a proper noun (or just a commonly used term) is also questionable. If it is the primary reference and it is a proper noun, then we wouldn't expect to see this n-gram result (referring to the criteria in MOS:CAPS as to what WP considers to be a proper noun). Cinderella157 (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I voted option C before, I agree that keeping the category at its current name is not much better or worse than option C. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2022 (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:Living people by year[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. Clear consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization when there is already Category:Living people and xxxx births. Bamyers99 (talk) 19:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Presuming that these categories would be used in place of Category:Living people and the xxxx births categories, I'm not sure I see any harm to diffusing the enormous Category:Living people. BD2412 T 19:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a very bad precedent and should be nipped in the bud. Maintenance will be a time-sink. (These are 'current' categories.) Oculi (talk) 19:59, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Category:Living people is not a content category, it is not based on a defining characteristic and it only exists for the sake of WP:BLP (read the category page). So diffusion is unneeded. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, redundant with existing birth date cats and the living person cat with is used as a tag for BLP.--Mvqr (talk) 17:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no idea what purpose this serves. Seems to go against the consensus not to create "X with Y" categories. Theknightwho (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge back to "19xx births". The article I looked at referred to a Utube channel, the date being its owner's birth, not the birth of the channel, which suggests the category is misused. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above collected reasons. --Just N. (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2022 (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.

Template:Myanmar-festival-stub[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One usage; two other countries are similarly upmerged to Category:Festival stubs. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:32, 2 January 2022 (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:New Mexico geologic formation stubs[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one usage; similar stub types have been upmerged to Category:Western United States geologic formation stubs. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2022 (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.

Template:Micrarctiina-stub[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only used on the eponymous article. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:27, 2 January 2022 (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:Agder church stubs[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unused; some similar stub types have been upmerged to Category:Norwegian church stubs. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2022 (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.

Template:Incremental-videogame-stub[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Incremental games is already pretty small, but this one is only used once. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:07, 2 January 2022 (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.

Template:GeorgiaUS-legislative-committee-stub[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused; apparently the only "legislative committee" stub type. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both template and category; completely useless and out-of-order. Curbon7 (talk) 07:17, 5 January 2022 (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.

Template:Greenland-law-bio-stub[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 10#Template:Greenland-law-bio-stub

Template:Greenland-diplomat-stub[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused; even the parent Category:Greenlandic government biography stubs contains only two articles. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:35, 2 January 2022 (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.

Template:Catalonia-painter-stub[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 10#Template:Catalonia-painter-stub

Template:Arizona-airport-stub[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 20#Template:Arizona-airport-stub

Template:MiddleEarth-stub[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: result (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unused; upmerge or delete. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There used to be a project on Tolkein's fictional universe, but I presume its work was completed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2022 (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:Royal houses of Armenian kingdoms[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. No explanation was given as to why the sub-cat doesn't belong in the other parent Category:Armenian kingdoms, so I will merge it there, but feel free to remove it from there if that's incorrect or unhelpful. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already in Category:European royal families. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2022 (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.

Ruling families of counties and duchies[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 "ruling families", i.e.

– Fayenatic London 22:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, these were dukes and counts rather than royals. Also reparent these categories, e.g. Category:Noble families of the Duchy of Brabant should become part of Category:Dutch noble families instead of Category:Royal houses of the Netherlands. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to the form Category:Ruling families of Berg, which avoids the question of whether the dukes were royal (kings) or merely noble. These were (or were largely) states of HRE, which were de facto independent. Though there were some imperial institutions, they had little impact on government at a local level. Some purging could usefully be undertaken. I found the House of Bourbon in one category (?Brabant) where they had little relevance. Furthermore the title varied periodically with rulers being promoted from count or margrave to Duke or Elector, and eventually Grand Duke or king. I am not sure that we need separate categories for each of the titles held by the Dukes of Burgundy, so that there is scope for merging, but that needs to be dealt with in a separate discussion on another day, when this has been closed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about this. We have extensive category trees with royal families and noble families. Categories "Ruling families of x" will fall in between, i.e. they will lack proper parenting. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Ruling families of Foo, per Peterkingiron. The intention behind this category tree is clear and is not realised by the existing proposal. The fact that we do not have current categorisation trees for this is, with respect, irrelevant - categorisation is intended to facilitate use of the encyclopaedia, not the other way around! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok fair point. In any case I would re-parent these categories from the royal tree to the nobility tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2022 (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:Burial sites of the House of Glücksburg (Denmark)[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. – Fayenatic London 22:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, one article in each category. We might also merge them higher up in the hierarchy to Category:Burial sites of the House of Oldenburg because after the proposed merge Category:Burial sites of the House of Glücksburg will still remain very small. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 2 January 2022 (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:Burial sites of the House of Rurik[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:Burial sites of the Rurik dynasty. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories seem to have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support merge, appears to be redundant.--Mvqr (talk) 11:40, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge seem to be identical in scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 7 January 2022 (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:Books about American repression[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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unclear conclusion criteria, thereby failing WP:INDISCRIMINATE. "Repression" is a contested, diffuse concept that is not made clearer by adding "American" to it. Only one of the members uses the word "repression" in the body or title—Political Repression in Modern America. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 03:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a catch-all term, that can merge together lots and lots of basically unlike things. It is not a workable way to gather together topics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2022 (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:Doujin soft[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. I will move the Developers category up to the parent Doujin. – Fayenatic London 22:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Seems to me that all of the articles in this category are not merely software, but video games. Either way, the category should be more clearly specified, and possibly another "Doujin soft" parent category created to include anything that may be notable in the software department that isn't a video game (but there don't seem to be any at the moment). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, as inconsistent with parent article Doujin soft. I suggest a RM at the article if you think this is relevant, but from what I see Doujin soft includes software that is not only games and "Doujin soft" appears as a term in sources.--Mvqr (talk) 11:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, e.g. subCategory:Doujin soft developers is not about games. By all means start a subcategory with games. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, literally all the articles in that category are of indie game studios. It would be a lot easier to move this category and create a parent one than to manually move each game here to the new video game category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is still a difference between studios and games. Many articles are about games but e.g. Carpe Fulgur is about a studio. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think what should be suggested is that there is a parent category "Doujin soft", which can have "Doujin video games" and "Doujin soft developers" as subcats. --Masem (t) 13:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Masem: I should have probably included Category:Doujin soft developers as part of the CfD, since that category should really be moved to video games as well. None of them are software developers. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • At least the last two articles in that category are about developers. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, probably phrased that wrong - none of them are developers of software that isn't a video game. Therefore they'd all fall under the purview of video games. It's been a while since video games have been called "software" in common parlance. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 09:56, 11 January 2022 (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/2022_January_2&oldid=1073186471"