Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 7

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< November 6 November 8 >

November 7

Category:Military occupation

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, unfortunately. The discussion did not converge on any particular alternative and the nomination is not widely enough supported. Seems like a set of individual renames would be needed here, maybe after a discussion somewhere else first. -Splash - tk 18:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This has always been a messy area, because "military occupation" can refer either to a career/specialty within the military or to a type of military operation. Fortunately, this is being clarified in article space with the move of Military occupations to Military careers. Unfortunately, there's a bit more to this in category space than can be handled speedily. We can still fairly easily name the relevant categories in the plural form of the corresponding articles; we simply need to come up with a title for the present Category:Military careers. I've suggested one name, but I'm open to alternatives --BDD (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. I'm not comfortable with the the last proposed rename target. It just seems wrong. As to the rename of Category:Military occupations, I'm not sure that an MOS is either a career or an occupation. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I had thought about Category:Individual military careers for the last one, but that seems to have the same ambiguity issue as the current name. Again, I'm definitely open to alternatives on that one. As for Category:Military occupations, that's a C2D but for the existing category occupying (heh) that space. At Talk:Military careers you'll find some other potential titles for that article that I suggested, and I would also be open to renaming to one of them. For now, it's just a matter of keeping category names caught up with article names. --BDD (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider Military careers as a good article to rename a category to follow. Besides not being referenced, it is not really definitive and at this point WP:OR. At a minimum it should be renamed to Military career and get a rewrite. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:36, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; virtually all members of Category:Military occupation are about specific occupations. Compare to, for example, Category:Civil wars. --BDD (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About 3 of the articles are topic articles, the rest are a set of occupations. The plural form should be a new sub-category for the set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems a bit picky, but I don't object. So Category:Military occupations would still be a list of individual military operations? Sounds fine. --BDD (talk) 00:59, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your first suggestion would seem to conflict with Category:Territories. --BDD (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The best option here could be to close this and nominate these one at a time. In the meantime;
Rename Category:Military careers to Category:Individual military careers however I'm not convinced that this is the correct option.
Oppose Category:Military occupations to Category:Military careers. These are basically occupation codes or occupations that are nothing more that stepping stones along a path one takes in building a military career.
Oppose Category:Military occupation to Category:Military occupations as this is completely ambiguous. Perhaps the best option offered in the discussion is Category:Military occupations of territories as a target, but not a proposed name I'm willing to jump at. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:35, 14 November 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.

Honorary Fellows

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: listfy and place new lists in list categories. Category:Honorary Fellows of universities and colleges renamed to Category:Lists of Honorary Fellows of universities and colleges. Category:Honorary Fellows of colleges of the University of Cambridge renamed to Category:Lists of Honorary Fellows of colleges of the University of Cambridge; its subcategories to be listified. Category:Honorary Fellows of colleges of the University of Oxford renamed to Category:Lists of Honorary Fellows of colleges of the University of Oxford; its subcategories to be listified. Category:National Research University – Higher School of Economics Honorary Professors to be listified. Category:Honorary Fellows of the University of Liège‎ deleted, since it contains only one article (Robert Wyatt), but users can create a list if desired.
Nominator's rationale: Delete all. All categories within this structure have been tagged and are included in this nomination. Following up on this nomination for honorary degree recipients and after consulting with a couple of our esteemed British editors, I don't believe that being made an honorary fellow of any of these institutions in a defining characteristic as contemplated by WP:OC#AWARD. The recipients are notable for and defined by their achievements in various fields of endeavor which is why they receive this and other similar honorifics. They are not notable for or defined by having received the honorific itself. If desired the contents can be listified and the lead category can be renamed to reflect that it is now a container category for lists. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:38, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is not an award. In UK it is a means of giving an academic who does not hold a university post access to some university facilities. This may be a post-doctoral researcher (without an academic post) or a retired lecturer. It is not an award, but equally it does not in itself confer notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What I was referring to may be called "Honorary Research Fellowships". These are certainly different from the honorific appointments made at Oxbridge. Where they are being given to a particularly distinguished alumni, those categories might be kept, but replacing the alumni category. Where honorary fellowships are only being given as a mark of distinction but to those otehrwise unassociated with the college, it is an award and should be listified. An award to a former principal should not be in a category, since the bio will have a category for him as principal. I think that we need procedural close, and the nomination of sample sub-categories. A category containing lists of honorary fellows would of course be legitimate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the view of honorary fellows varies from college to college, so I'll abandon the merger suggestion. The key thing from my point of view is to listify before any deletion, as these are useful resources. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 19:15, 12 November 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:Slavic-speaking wikipedians

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: speedy rename (C2A). The Bushranger One ping only 12:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Just uppercase, like in other Wikipedians-related categories. --Rezonansowy (talk • contribs) 22:08, 7 November 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:Marvel Cinematic Universe television characters

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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:54, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a needed subcategory. Most of the characters in the list don't even belong here JDDJS (talk) 15:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A growing category, in light of the deal Marvel made with Netfilx to make numerous television series with their characters, as well as the growing roster of characters in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Also, the current category Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters is becoming overpopulated, necessitating the subcategory. Richiekim (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has not been stated yet whether or not the new Netflix series will take place in the Cinematic Universe. It might be part of a new universe. JDDJS (talk) 16:00, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Even if the Netflix series are not part of the MCU, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. most certainly is, and the growing number of characters (including exclusive TV characters, like Graviton and Victoria Hand) justifies the subcategory.Richiekim (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are under 100 articles in Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters. That is no where near being over populated. There are currently only 11 articles in the subcategory, and that is counting the characters from the new series and characters that appear in both film and television. Without the subcategory, there will only be 100 articles, and up to 200 articles can fit on one page. Categories are considered over populated when there are hundreds of articles in, not just 100. There is no need at all for a subcategory at this time, but maybe in the future. JDDJS (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - combines characters for whom having been in a single episode of Agents of SHIELD is not a defining characteristic, characters who haven't even appeared in Agents of SHIELD yet and characters whose inclusion is based on assumptions of their identities that are not present in the texts themselves. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the usual outcome for fictional universes is to merge the articles into a single article on its characters. This leaves the category largely empty, or merely full of redirects. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Too many characters will appear in television, comic books, films, etc. The article will cover the character mentioning all in one article in many cases. No reason to categorize by all such appearances.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 11 November 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:Janelle Monáe

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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous cats are only needed if we have loads of content needed to be categorized per the relevant guideline. Here, we have four things in all. So yeah, too small. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 12:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All relevant content is accessible through Janelle Monáe discography and the songs and albums subcats can just as easily be linked to each through a hat note. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:21, 7 November 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:Honoured Masters of Sports of the USSR

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 first, delete the second. – Fayenatic London 22:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These two categories seem to be for different ranks of the Unified Sports Classification System of the USSR and Russia. The plurals Master/Masters and Sport/Sports should be made consistent. Tim! (talk) 09:27, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely delete Master of Sports category, probably delete Honoured Master category. Neither classification appears to be independently notable enough to sustain a separate article and both appear to conflict with WP:AWARD. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:47, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean WP:OC#AWARD ? DexDor (talk) 20:16, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 09:21, 7 November 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:Songs about remorse

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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:51, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very vague concept, inherently OR. I doubt any of these songs can be pinned to such a nebulous concept. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 09:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - overly vague and overly broad to function as an effective category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I think there is a lot of precedent by deleting songs by subject categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without remorse. Categorizing songs by lyrics does not work. Several have been deleted before as noted above. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers the classic "about" problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:25, 13 November 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. So long as the application of the category is enforced as the category name and definition are written, there should be no problem with this being overexpansive. With two "keep" results in the past few weeks, I would expect there to be a significant gap between this close and a future nomination for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:45, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Trivial association, not a defining feature. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Has wildly grown in size in violation of the consensus of 2 October 2013, to the point that no longer show a defining feature. Only deletion and starting over would establish said consensus.
A little history: This category is previously nominated for deletion in 2 October 2013. In a rather pointy discussion, participants established a very narrow definition of protagonist (that excludes deuteragonist and tritagonist) and landed on the consensus to keep the category if we stick to that narrow definition, so as to establish the defining feature articulated by Gender representation in video games article. Since that discussion, however, the category has only grown in size and shown no signs of becoming the defining feature, as the nominator has correctly perceived. So, nothing short of deleting and starting over establishes the consensus of 2 October 2013.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 08:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest keep, also we had this discussion last month: Actually it is a defining feature, especially given the ongoing drama in mass media regarding the subject ([1][2][3][4][5][6] etc.). Btw, it didn't "wildly grown in size in violation of the consensus". Actually only very few articles were added (from 800 odd to about 900 articles, that is few dozen or so at most, while many articles are still not categorized), and CL is outright misinforming people again (and "the nominator" CL talks about was CL herself,[7] who either just had no idea or pretended to have no idea what the word "protagonist" means). --Niemti (talk) 10:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Trim and rename Category:Video games featuring female main protagonists Currently there are too many articles in this category that aren't at all defined as having female protagonist. For example, Crash Bandicoot: Warped is in this category, even though the main character is Crash and Coco is only used in a couple of levels. JDDJS (talk) 16:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever is "female main protagonists"? I don't think any of the articles I cited used such a phrase. This is not really the subject of anyone's interest, or studies: Google Books has only 6 (six) results for this neologysm for as compared to 1,590 for just "female protagonists" (both in the context of video games). If you have a particular problem with "For example, Crash Bandicoot: Warped", either discuss it on talk page(s) or be bold and remove it. --Niemti (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, so how about instead of renaming it, just make a note clarifying that this is only for games where females are the main protagonist and should not include games like Crash, where Coco is only the deuteragonist. Currently, there are too many examples of this to have individual discussions. JDDJS (talk) 16:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is she playable on these levels, instead of Crash, who is not playable? Is she having a large part in the game's plot? Is she even on the cover, and displayed prominently? If so, what's the problem? She's a female protagonist. (Quote from the article: The game follows the main characters Crash and Coco Bandicoot as they travel through time and prevent the villains from gathering the Crystals by collecting them themselves.) --Niemti (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As for the claim of "trivial, not defining", a test with random cats:

  • "Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists has been viewed 2968 times in the last 30 days."[8]
  • "Category:Cancelled_video_games has been viewed 1944 times in the last 30 days."[9]
  • "Category:Vehicle_simulation_games has been viewed 401 times in the last 30 days."[10]
  • "Category:Video_games_by_graphical_style has been viewed 290 times in the last 30 days."[11]
  • "Category:Christian_video_games has been viewed 147 times in the last 30 days."[12]

I'd say very defining, not only according to the huge media attention nowadays, but also according to Wikipedia viewers. --Niemti (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is just another version ofWikipedia:Search engine test 2968 times in this case is the number of people this category has confused and disappointed. Justin wasn't in our first nomination; he became one of the 2968 and decided to nominate it for deletion.
But anyway, you made promises in our first nomination and still haven't honored them.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, 'the artist previously known as the nominator'. "But anyway, you made promises in our first nomination and still haven't honored them." I don't know what you talk about. No idea at all. I guess you've imagined something again, just like when you tried to convince people your absurd claim "any character is a protagonist". I guess it makes you "confused and disappointed" alright (especially "confused"), but it's not my problem. --Niemti (talk) 12:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further demolition of the uninformed claim of "Trivial association, not a defining feature." - these are new articles from just last 30 days:

Another example: Female Protagonists in Video Games: Legitimate Problem or Self-Serving Agenda?. (Quote: From an average person’s perspective, it probably seems strange that Grand Theft Auto V, a game full of simulated murder and other crime, would draw a noticeable amount of criticism for its lack of female protagonists. The strangest form of this criticism came from Forbes writer Paul Tassi (...))

And so on, just last weeks. I can guarantee you have no such debate about pretty much anything else in the entire category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_games_by_theme (which, btw, "has been viewed 1224 times in the last 30 days"). --Niemti (talk) 17:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • leaning towards keep if the inclusion criteria is strict, and is not simply female characters in the game, but principal characters - not "one of the main characters" - but "the principal character" is or can be a woman.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:06, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - Didn't we just do this? Given the length and...enthuiasm...of the last discussion, a renomination this soon is disruptive even if done in the best of good faith. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:08, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! Did you know you are the kind of person with the power to speedy keep? And admin? Look, if you choose to vote "speedy keep" instead of speedy keeping it, that means no other admin will contradict you. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, very true. But seems to me that not supervoting means admins never voting speedy keep because then, it is never speedy kept, or at least the speedy part is disregarded. Am I missing something? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 04:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're missing the part where you were talking about yourself in third person, misleadingly calling yourself "the nominator" instead of "I" ("as the nominator has correctly perceived"). So silly. --Niemti (talk) 11:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took that to mean "the nominator of the current discussion" (aka Justin) not as a 3rd person reference to Lisa herself. In any case, it is a bit beside the point. It soemtiems happens, by the way, that an involved admin will opine that a discussion should be a speedy keep, and later an UNinvolved admin will so close it. DES (talk) 16:49, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, DES. Thanks for clarification. Yes, "involved" makes sense. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sigh, as others pointed out, we had a lively discussion on this last month already. Or if anything, consolidate it to a category called "Video games featuring female main protagonists" or something like that. Dwscomet (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Bloody hell, we just went through this. There have been ample reliable sources discussing the highly non-trivial topic of female protagonists in video gaming, so that argument falls way short of having any weight. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:09, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is still overcategoziation of the games by a non-defining trait. Especially considering how many protagonists some video games have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've missed this whole (huge) controversy over how few protagonists video games have. Click some links that I provided above ("the ongoing drama in mass media regarding the subject", and that's just some examples), if you didn't yet. Actually it is a much more defining trait than almost everything else in the parent category "video games by feature", becuase things like "video games about hacking" or whatever are not being given any media attention at all, while this issue is being given lots. --Niemti (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and - what are those "some" games with "many" female protagonists you mentioned with your "especially", and what does it have to do with anything at all? (It's not like such hypothetical, and possibly non-existing, games would be listed "many" times each in any case.) --Niemti (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think John's point - which is smack on target - is that many games have multiple protagonist/lead characters, so if the category were simply trying to classify them, it is trivial. What those of from the VG are saying in our keeps is that this category needs to focus on the principal character and not the ensemble cast - typically exactly one character from any game - at which point the gender aspect is no longer trivial. --MASEM (t) 15:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And it already does. --Niemti (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it does not. For example "Killer7" is an ensemble cast of 7. Yes, some are female, but they aren't the primary singular character like with Lara Croft in Tomb Raider. The press's interest is on games that latter case. Same with games like Final Fantasy VII - yes, Aeris is an important character, but its an ensemble cast of both genders (and others...). And there's games on here that have no story, which is the facet of the press that they're talking about female character in story-driven games and not just one of several skins you can play as. If we aren't going to employ a better resolution of what we consider a female protagonist, then I'd have to agree this category is too vague and trivial. --MASEM (t) 16:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per Johnpacklambert. - SchroCat (talk) 13:12, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly "per Johnpacklambert"? This: "Especially considering how many protagonists some video games have." - what does it even mean (I can't even think about even 1 such game, with "many" female protagonists - for a second I thought Eternal Darkness, but actually there's only 1 or 2 at most, if tou count's Ellia's episode), and how is it relevant to anthing? Explain it to me, please. --Niemti (talk) 16:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not Wikipedia:BLUDGEON others just because they disagree with you. I'll also add: as per Codename Lisa to my opinion. - SchroCat (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain to me what this "Especially considering how many protagonists some video games have.", as you've seemingly understood and supported it, and tell how is this revelant. Can you do it, or not? Also, per what exactly Codename Lisa? This part where I promised something to her (??) and then disappointed her (???). Please explain it to me too, because I don't understand it at all, while you seemingly do. This part where hse says the cat's "wildly grown in size in violation of the consensus of 2 October 2013, to the point that no longer show a defining feature", which is all entirely false (including "widely grown in size"), and which I've wrote is false but you disregarded, apparently not caring for actual facts? Hey, do you even know video games? If you don't know - this is actually an extremely defining feature (with a lot of discussion and controversy surrounding it these days), and now you know. If you didn't, don't discuss things you don't know, and also don't instantly believe random people's opinions before checking facts (all while completely disregarding the corrections to these misconceptions, and sources, despite them being the only sources used here). --Niemti (talk) 17:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you to stop BLUDGEONing others: do so. Please also avoid turning the comments to a personal slat (such as "Hey, do you even know video games?"): focus on the edit and the points at hand - but without bludgeoning. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What "points at hand" if you refuse to answer what exactly you pered? The claim of "not defining", maybe? According to the current media consensus - such games are 1) incredibly rare (blowing up their rarity out of proportion, as you can see - they are a relative rarity, but it's not anything holy grail here), and 2) it's super important for some reason to have as many of them as possible (an often repeated reason is that the "48%" female gamers supposedly need to play as their gender, or else it allagedly causes them a huge discomfort somehow). Also read (again? for the first time?) what I wrote in this thread earlier, and in the previous thread (just last month) too. (And no, I didn't create this category.) --Niemti (talk) 17:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Nom" was just a personal opinion (incorrect and completely unsourced), read my demolishing of it (backed by sources and other evidence). Also, read the previous thread (just last month) for more explaination, references, etc. --Niemti (talk) 10:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And here's more (and still only sample) media attention from just this week (the time of this thread):

So "trivial" and "non-defining", yeah. Sigh. --Niemti (talk) 10:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But hey, maybe instead of all this well sourced evidence I should rather write it as a 6-word sentence for people to "per" (something like this Trivial association, not a defining feature.). Let me try: "Extremely important association, a defining feature." Which is actually true. Okay now, for the categories for discussion crowd? --Niemti (talk) 12:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep - a discussion a month-and-a-half ago gave a very clear consensus of "keep". The issue of the absence of a female protagonist in a lot of games is something that has had a large amount of press coverage, and is clearly a notable, and defining, thing for a game. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It can be a category, as long as people stick to the definition of "protagonist" as the central, leading character, instead of being simply one of the main characters. Get that straightened out, and this category can certainly stay. --ProtoDrake (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Salvidrim and Lukeno94. -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We just had this discussion, and nothing substantial has changed. Reliable sources exist in abundance to support this category's existence. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 19:35, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A necessary category due to the often cited sexism particular to the video game industry. Dkreisst (talk) 10:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last month's consensus and per ProtoDrake. It would probably help if the definition of the category was spelled out at the top of the category page to alleviate concerns (such as that of Codename Lisa) that this will serve as a catch-all for any game with a female character in it. It would also avoid problems if we included links to the previous deletion discussions (last month's and this one when it is closed). But another issue that I think produces underlying concerns for some is that this is clearly a topic of date-related notability. If we think about the dawn of theater (or film) it might have been notable at that time that there were female actors, but today it's ubiquitous and non-defining. Notability is not temporary, but the boundaries of the notable topic may restrict it to the dawn of the medium. I'm guessing that it would be inappropriate for this category to be applied to video games coming out in the year 2075 for example. And that does suggest that this category isn't going to be as stable as some others, but I think we're talking about instability on the order of decades and this can easily be dealt with through CfD. So basically I'm saying that it may be a very good idea to revisit this discussion in 10 years or so. -Thibbs (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep But we need to limit it to cases of where we are talking the primary protagonist, and not just one of several playable characters/lead roles - if this requires additional text and renaming to be clear, then so be it. It is a completely fair category that the industry has pointed out that primary female leads are the definitely minority and thus showcase games that have this is reasonable. But we're talking games like Tomb Raider and Mirror's Edge - there's a main character and that character is female. Or something like Final Fantasy X-2 where your party is of three females - but not Final Fantasy X where you have an ensemble cast. It's definitely a trait that can be defined and can be tracked, but how to name and describe it to avoid overgrowth and inappropriate inclusion needs to be fixed. --MASEM (t) 15:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yuna is the female protagonist in both Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2. --Niemti (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • X-2 yes (since all 3 playable characters are female) but no way (particularly from that non-RS) is see "the" protagonist of FFX. That's the problem, if the point of the category is to address the issue of the lack/minority of strong female-character-led games, it must have a much more defined approach that just a female being a protagonist, otherwise, as the delete !votes have said here, it is a trivial categorization since roughly half of all video game characters are female. --MASEM (t) 15:20, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There's no "the" protagonist in FFX, there's a male and female protagonist. (The rest of the party are lesser characters, including Lulu, who's merely a sort of bodyguard to her.) Who do you think is "the" protagonist of Resident Evil 2? Oh, and "roughly half of all video game characters are female" is untrue, but this has nothing to do with the subject, it's not about female "video game characters" (who are relatively rare on their own), but female video game protagonists. --Niemti (talk) 21:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The entire justification for this category is to try to address the lack of strong female lead characters in video games as it is a known minority ; it's the issues that Anita Sarkeesian and others have brought up, and as such, it needs to be limited to those characters that are one of a very limited number (not an RPG part) of characters that drive the story. So perhaps Yuna would be there; I've not played RE2, but fro RE5 I would definitely include Sheva; or characters like Elizabeth from BioShock Infinite, or Alyx Vance from Half-Life or Chelmentine from The Walking Dead even though they are not playable, their character alone is half (or more) the reason the story of the game is going forward. But there's games on this list that do not show any such type of discrimination - like Ms. Pac-Man. Yes, she's female, and the lead/only player character, but there's zero story here, at least related to the Sarkeesian's issues. If you're just going to list games where there's a female protagonist, it may not be 50% of any VG protagonist, but it is far from being scarce like Sarkeesian and others have postulated on their takes. (maybe its in the 40% range, I don't know). Hence the concerns that if you don't discriminate any farther, this is a trivial categorization that should be removed. --MASEM (t) 21:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is what the media claim. I don't evem think it was ever "problematic", but I'm not a so-called jounalist. Read the featured article Resident Evil 2, even just the lead (which I didn't write). Sheva is actually just a sidekick for Chris, not a protagonist. Which is why RE5 not on the list[ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Video_games_featuring_female_protagonists&from=R] which is actually "enforced" and actually more "discriminated" than you jsut tried to propose. I have the lowest possible opinion about Sarkeesian and her "work". What is the gender co-relation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_characters_by_gender (less than 1/3 are female despite me myself writing about 1/3 of female articles and only a few male). In other words: they're rare overall, in all roles (including their percentage in cannon fodder to kill, almost all enemy mooks in games are male, often only male). I hope I helped to correct your misconceptions about female characters in video games. --Niemti (talk) 13:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I just counted those created by me: Alma Wade, Annah-of-the-Shadows, Avatar (Ultima), Aya Brea, Ayame (Tenchu), Ayane (Dead or Alive), Black Orchid (Killer Instinct), The Boss (Metal Gear), Cate Archer, Christie (Dead or Alive), Dark Queen (Battletoads), Elexis Sinclaire, EVA (Metal Gear), Grace Nakimura, Hana Tsu-Vachel, Heather Mason, Hitomi (Dead or Alive), Ibuki (Street Fighter), Jade (Mortal Kombat), Julia Chang, Jun Kazama, Kasumi (Dead or Alive), KOS-MOS, Maki Genryusai, Meryl Silverburgh, Michelle Chang (Tekken), Mona Sax, Rachel (Ninja Gaiden), Rebecca Chambers (character), Sheeva, Sindel, Sniper Wolf, Taki (Soulcalibur), Terra Branford, Tina Armstrong, Tira (Soulcalibur), Yuffie Kisaragi. (Most of the rest in the category I either co-wrote or rewrite, but these are the ones I created.) Yeah, Sheeva's too. But she's not a protagonist. Other sidekicks in this list include Annah, Grace, Rachel and Yuffie, and while sidekicks are not at all "problematic", contrary to the extended ideology of Sarkeesianism so prevelent in the media today, they're simply not protagonists. (I'm not sure about what to think about the role of Mona Sax in Max Payne 2, though.) Btw, the brand new article Elizabeth (BioShock) fails to realize she is the protagonist of the game. --Niemti (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • That Category:Video_game_characters_by_gender is only counting characters with standalone pages, so that's not a fair assessment. And it doesn't matter if you think little of Sarkeesian, any conversation today about female characters in video games comes back to her, most agreeing she has a point about this. To this category, the way you are maintaining it seems to be "who is the protagonist(s) and are they female?" and that is far too trivial since for nearly every video game there is always a protagonist and they are (with limited exceptions) male or female. Hence why it is a trivial categorization without further discrimination. It would almost be better to have a category of "Female video game protagonists", which yes, will not have every noted one but is much better refined, than this approach which necessarily assigns every video game to one of two categories. --MASEM (t) 16:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Well, how little you know. Most gamers don't agree with Sarkeesian - and most also just stopped caring (the only ones who still care are only her small cult of personalty she's raised, some fellow feminists, the so-called journalists, and few obsessive critics). Very many games do not have gendered protagonists at all. Often (possibly most often) they just don't have designated protagonists (someone 'physical' to identify with) period. That's including great most of vehicle simulation games and strategy games, many/most racing games and puzzle games, many especially early shooters, and so on. Where there are protagonists, they're usually just male, not "male or female". I invite you to go to any Wikipedia category "games from 19XX/20XX" and start clicking on first games there, and see how many female protagonist games will you see as compared to male ones (and how many will have just none, btw). Do this little experiment and come back. This rarity is not a problem, for me (while it's the problem for mass media somehow), but that's a hard fact. And, of course, almost all game protagonists (of any kind) just don't have articles on Wikipedia. Like the character of Ms. Pac-Man, which you yourself brought to the discussion, has no article too. And actually even Pac-Man himself wouldn't have it if I didn't re-create it, despite him being one of the biggest game characters in history, because Wikipedia just sucks so much in this regard. --Niemti (talk) 19:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • You missed the point. Pretty much any video game today will have a male or a female (or both) protagonist. That's what is being called a trivial sorting approach. That's why either the category must be deleted (we don't do trivial categorizations), or if this category is kept, you need to stop OWNing it and allow appropriate discrimination to reflects games that are centered around the female protagonist as outlined by journalists (the ones you wave off above). The fact that something like Ms. Pac-Man is on this list is a core part of the problem. --MASEM (t) 20:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Huh? What's your problem with Ms. Pac-Man, I don't follow? Someone said it wasn't a game with female protagonist? You just lost me completely. Wikipedia article Ms. Pac-Man says its very lead: "The game introduced a female protagonist". Apparently, it was even "the first playable female character in any videogame." And "Pretty much any video game today will have a male or a female (or both) protagonist. " - no. For example, right now I play XCOM, it has no protagonist, the "Commander" is just the player with no ingame avatar. And the female protagonists are still rare (which is regarded as "problematic" by many, not by me though). But well, you're free and provide me sources to back your claims like "roughly half of all video game characters are female" or how is not a rarity anymore for a game to have a female protagonist, the very odd claims that I never heard before. --Niemti (talk) 09:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                    • If we start from the point that we agree that lead female characters is a thing interested by the press (for a number of reasons but most specifically to show issues of a field normally dominated by strong male characters with females typically portrayed as frail and weak), do you seriously think that such gender activists in the video game industry are cheering that Ms. Pac-man is a female protagonist? No, they are calling out to the Lara Crofts, the Faiths, the Lightnings - where the female character is the primary lead character and strongly characterized, not just because some dev put "Ms." in front of a name or breasts on the model. That's the problem with this list as you are maintaining it - it's not resolving games that actually having female leads. Using the term "protagonist" makes this too broad, since by definition the protagonist is either going to be male or female (excluding a small fraction of non-gendered lead characters). --MASEM (t) 15:59, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Weak?) Keep, but with the intention of narrowing down or further categorizing the list so it's a little more manageable. I actually came across this while researching video games with such specific content. Granted, it wasn't an academic endeavor by any means, but the category has helped me find the information I was searching for. I suppose it's technically in the realm of overcategorization, but I'm sure it could be helpful to anybody else curious about the subject matter. 98.86.104.51 (talk) 05:50, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Looking over the list again, I would propose restricting it to games whose lead character is female. For instance, Final Fantasy XIII and Tomb Raider are clear examples of this. There are simply too many games with female protagonists who may be secondary characters. e.g. Should the category specify nearly every Mario installment simply because Peach is present somewhere in each of the games? Truncating the category like this would possibly help avoid overcategorization and future AfD nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.86.104.51 (talk) 05:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Protagonist means lead character. There is no such thing as a protagonist secondary character. I'm not sure why this is difficult for people to grasp :P Kaldari (talk) 07:11, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but enforce the definition. It is true that most of the articles in this category do not meet the definition of "protagonist", but the solution is to remove the articles, not to delete the category. Kaldari (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's already enforced. --Niemti (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from Dora the Explorer to Lara Croft, the protagonist's gender is a strong defining characteristic of the games. The article "CROFT: A TOUGH, TOP-HEAVY TRENDSETTER" discusses Lara Croft as a model for female lead characters, as does this one which discusses how "women gamers want female protagonists with athletic physiques, expressive faces, and practical clothing." Heck, the Encyclopedia of Gender in Media dedicates a whole chapter to the topic. It's sad that nominators and the usual CfD suspects -- people who know better, and should know better -- refuse to do the most trivial of searches required by Wikipedia policy for actual real-world usage before a knee jerk "Delete: not defining". Alansohn (talk) 15:45, 26 November 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:Bruce Johnston

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) 18:14, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Not sure there is a content minimum for having a category, but this person has articles relating to he performances of music as well as writing songs (the best known and widely awarded of which received he did not perform) and so this seems like the appropriate place to keep the articles related to him categorized. Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Small eponymous category, not needed to connect the material which is already linked through the subject's article itself. Note to nominator, a better deletion rationale than "too little content" perhaps with links to such guidelines as WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS would make for better CFD experiences. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:27, 7 November 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:Pekan Olahraga Nasional venues

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; one article upmerged as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In all these categories there is just one article - that should be upmerged to Category:2012 in Asian football, Category:2012 in Indonesian sport, Category:2012 in association football and Category:Pekan Olahraga Nasional. For info: Until recently there was a 2nd article in this structure which I've now turned into a redirect. For info: Part of the PON category structure was deleted by a previous CFD. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 7 November 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 Dzershinsk, Russia

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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:48, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dzerzhinsk is the standard way of spelling the city. Dzershinsk isn't, and doesn't have a page at Wikipedia. Unimaginable666 (talk) 02:14, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is probably an issue of the appropriate transliteration of a Cyrillic name, where neither version is necessarily correct, but the category should match the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 7 November 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:NASA goodwill lunar sample display gifts

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 all. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are virtually exact duplicates of the target. All three of these should be in a single category, as they all have exactly the same scope. (Note that the target is a redlink as it is currently at CFDS for renaming from Category:Apollo lunar sample displays.) The Bushranger One ping only 00:54, 7 November 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:NASA contractors

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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC; in many cases having been a contractor for NASA will not be defining for the company, and depending on how you define the scope of the category it could become impossibly broad. The Bushranger One ping only 00:51, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - this could work well as a list but isn't defining for them; I'm sure there are many companies whose main business is being a contractor for apple, or microsoft, or GE, or verizon ... etc. This is a bit of performer-by-performance, not defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:21, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is in the nature of a performance category. If a contractor ONLY worked for NASA, it might be different. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 7 November 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:Notes

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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 09:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Note is about the musical notation/sound, so some sort of disambiguation is needed here. There's not really a main article that I know of, but disambiguating with "(finance)" seems generic enough. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator. The current title is ambiguous, and a disambiguator is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom and bhg. Also consider changing inclusion criteria or removing the banknotes and currency sub-cats.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:43, 7 November 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_November_7&oldid=1138398587"