Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of video games with time travel (2nd nomination)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   merge to List of games containing time travel . Clearly redundant to each other, and the other list is the better article. Black Kite 07:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

List of video games with time travel
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

a "Category:Time travel video games" already exists. Also, there's a "List of games containing time travel" with similar content Garethfc (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as redundant to the categories. Sometimes, a list and category overlapping are fine, but this… nah. Too little non-list content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete List of games containing time travel is 10x better then this list, and makes this list redundant. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge the two lists. The "has a category" argument is wrong: Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of potentially providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing.  Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. Not just "sometimes",  but "almost always" unless it's sos obscure nobody wants to bother making the list.  The question is whichis the better list--personally, I see advantages in each: for locating a game or sorting by yearm the present one is much quicker to read. Of course, it's also less informative. It's an interesting question how the merits can be combined--possibly by a 4th column, description?  DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the list identified by Blake. There may be some games on this list that need to be mentioned on the redirect target, but Blake is right, the other is ten times better.  Although I suppose this can provide information that the category doesn't, it's not useful information-- manufacturer and date of release have nothing to do with why these titles are on the list. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Although having two lists is redundant neither of them contain everything they should. The population is large enough to support a separate list (IE this one), in which case fields like description, year and format are highly desirable because they're what separates lists from categories, having release years/dates also enables the table to be used as a chronology or alphabetical list with a single click. I subscribe to Games TM, the latest issue arrived @ 4 hours ago by post and it contains a six page feature on time travel in video games. Not only does it provide a solid preamble for a standalone list but it also splits games into two camps - games with time travel as a plot theme and those with it as a gameplay mechanic - the same as used on the larger list. The pieces are all there for something much better. Someoneanother 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge in relevant information from List of games containing time travel. There is enough information to support this list by itself in addition to the games list.  Put a wikilink in the games list to this one.  Narthring (talk  • contribs) 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of games containing time travel [Belinrahs &#124; 'sup? &#124; what'd I do?] 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Aids in navigation, plenty of blue links listed there. There are enough video games to fill this list on its own.  If you combine it with other types of games, it'd get too crowded.  So I say Keep, not merge.   D r e a m Focus  04:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete list is redundant. Richard  ( talk ) 04:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.