Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 6



Category:Native American

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Native American topics. Kbdank71 15:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Category:Native American → Category:Native Americans

Change from singular to plural. The singular form "Native American" refers either to one individual or is an adjective encompassing all things related to Native Americans. Either meaning is poorly defined. — CharlotteWebb 00:01, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Definitely not [eligible for Speedy renaming] -- there's a reason the target name already has a category redirect. (Check out the CFD that yielded the current set-up for more info on this.) Cgingold (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep per Cgingold - is a Rename to :Category:Native American topics "peoples" or "subjects" out of the question? Johnbod (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I was about to suggest merging this and Category:Native American people into one at Category:Native Americans, but "Native American topics" would certainly be better as a container category for all things Native American, if one is needed, — CharlotteWebb 01:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Native American topics per Johnbod. I had been struggling between Category:Native American and Category:Native Americans, and Johnbod's suggestion is better than either of those two. Alansohn (talk) 04:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Native American topics because the existing term is a bit ambiguous. __meco (talk) 07:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I went looking for the CFD that I referenced above, and discovered that I had slightly mis-remembered that CFD. It turned out that it was for the African-American super-category, which is analagous to this one in virtually every respect. Ironically, though, that CFD started with and finished with  -- the exact opposite of where this one appears to be heading at the moment. (I'm glad to see that Johnbod has reversed course from his previous position.) I wasn't really happy with the outcome on that previous CFD, since it resulted in an odd formulation. Even after re-reading the discussion, I still don't understand why it went the way it did. As far as this category is concerned, I'm inclined to support renaming to Category:Native American topics, unless a superior name can be found. Cgingold (talk) 12:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, yes, I thought this stirred dim memories. I started a keeper there, but was pursuaded on the rename, I think after others fell in behind it. Probably a mistake. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy

 * 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, though problematic application in the future of the kind Postdlf identifies may be a good reason for a reappraisal of the use of a category for this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * companies that have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy


 * Nominator's rationale: Looks to be a recreation of the previously deleted category Companies in Chapter 11, Hawaiian717 (talk) 23:49, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Having reviewed the previous CfD, I find it hard to understand how the conclusion was that consensus was for deletion. "I can't figure out what the name should be, so delete" is a rather poor way to make policy. As with every single category in Wikipedia, this category should be backed by reliable sources supporting the claim that the company has sought protection under Chapter 11, Title 11, United States Code, or as it's most commonly referenced, under Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Seeking bankruptcy protection may be bad for stockholders, but it is certainly not defamatory, and is a strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 01:16, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep In what struck me as a very odd close last time, Kdbank said "The temporary situation/difficult to maintain argument is also very strong" - this version of the name avoids that issue at any rate, and is therefore not a straight recreation. It can hardly be said not to be defining. Johnbod (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Alansohn and Johnbod. Cgingold (talk) 03:26, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep per Alansohn and Johnbod. __meco (talk) 07:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * keep with this name. It is certainly defining for the company.  For some companies, it is the story of their life!  Hmains (talk) 02:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is this a current category (like Category:Living people), or does it include any company that is or ever was in Ch.11 bankrupcy (i.e. those companies that managed to get out of bankrupcy)? Nifboy (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A valid category, especially right now, will probably get big fast. Comment on above remark, probably will have to be spun out to multiple categories eventually, but for now I think it should be any company that has filed. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete. I think this avoids some of the problems with the prior category, but it will still inevitably be misapplied.  "Companies" as we understand them are often networks of related corporate entities that operate together under the one public trade name, with this network consisting of asset holding companies, parents, subsidiaries, etc.  Our articles gloss over those distinctions, which is understandable considering that it would probably take a review of their SEC filings to sort it out, but it is these corporate entities that file for bankruptcy protection.  Then there's the issue of mergers and other corporate restructuring...so the corporate entity that filed for bankruptcy may not be the one that still exists despite a superficial appearance of continuity.  Categories are just too clumsy to deal with these issues.  Postdlf (talk) 23:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Sony Pictures

 * 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. Valid rationale. No opposing arguments. If this isn't a speedy renaming criterion (article redirects to full name) then it should be. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Though now I've looked a bit closer, I see the rename destination already exists as a subcategory of the nominated category. Um. Rejigging the categories to make "Pictures" a subcat of "Entertainment", and will then request an upmerge. If anyone objects, feel free to relist for further discussion. Carcharoth (talk) 11:49, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sony Pictures to Category:Sony Pictures Entertainment
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article Sony Pictures Entertainment. -choster (talk) 23:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Support rename to match corresponding main article. Alansohn (talk) 04:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom Beeblebrox (talk) 00:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Military occupations

 * 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. Relisting did not seem to find a solution.  At this point taking the discussion to the wiki project or another talk page to try and figure this out is the best alternative.  If a solution surfaces there, or someone figures out the right solution, then feel free to renominate. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Category:Military occupations rename to Category:Military service occupations
 * Nominator's rationale: Requested to avoid further confusion with Category:Military occupation--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:00, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I definitely support this in principle -- it's long overdue. Unless somebody comes up with a better word than "service", I will support this proposal. And of course, the other category should be pluralized to "occupations", so this name will actually be reincarnated instead of going out of existence completely. Cgingold (talk) 06:31, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Military and naval occupations - since navies come under this cat (see the US sub-cat),and the ambiguity is I think avoided by this. Otherwise Category:Occupations in the military and navyJohnbod (talk) 12:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Navies are generally regarded as part of (a branch of) the military, so this would be redundant. Cgingold (talk) 23:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Only in the US I think - in the the UK "military" does not cover naval in most contexts. Johnbod (talk) 23:45, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmm -- I think perhaps the UK is an exception in that regard? But, in any event, they're all categorized under -- including the UK. Cgingold (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I doubt it! In the UK, and I expect Australia etc, "armed forces" is the umbrella term. If that is comprehensible to americans, it would be preferable here. Johnbod (talk) 03:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, "armed forces" is a widely used term -- are you suggesting ? (Let me give that some thought.) Cgingold (talk) 03:50, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No doubt you remember that the use of "armed forces" vs "military" for use in categories has been considered before and in wider contexts and applications. It seems to me that having Category:Naval occupations as a sub-category in the Military organisations would solve all that since the category would be clearly visible and distinguished from the civilian Maritime category--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 04:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually, no. Do you have a link? Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a look through the Military History Project Archived talk--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, I suggest you withdraw your rename proposal unless you want to experience a sampling of aerial precision guidance weapons deliver occupation ;). Seriously though, I would suggest that within the Military service occupations there needs to be sub-categories for the Services specific occupations as their specific categories. I have just added Marine occupations, and that includes sailor. I have just added the maritime and underwater occupations, and created military aviation occupations--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 23:49, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Marine occupations obviously includes civilian ones - why on earth avoid the obvious term "naval"?? Johnbod (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I added it as an expedient. In reality you are right, and the "marine" needs to be replaced with Naval occupations that would include the "underwater" as Submarine occupations. Its a start though since sailor was not even an article linked to military occupations!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 03:53, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Latin miles, militis means soldier and does not include sailor, but the marines belong half way. I would support "armed services" as an appropriate umbrella.  Peterkingiron (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems to me this is an unwarranted approach for the purpose of categorising naval subjects that have military relationships regardless of the combat service it relates to. Quite obviously Romans had no ability to include the Air Force into their vocabulary, and yet strike aircraft are accepted as being "military" aircraft--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 00:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Rename to "foo careers". Since the nomination was to remove confusion with Category:Military occupation, calling these "careers" should do nicely.  As for the "foo", no opinion on "Military", "Military and naval", "Armed Forces", "We'll pay you to kill people", whatever you decide, I'm good with.  --Kbdank71 16:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Military careers . Following above military seems inclusinve enought and careers will serve the purpose of eliminating future invasions of the USA from this category. --Salix (talk): 18:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Argh: Category:Military careers is already taken for the careers of specific people.
 * Well, then perhaps "military careers" should be renamed? (It's obviously not clear in its inclusion criteria if several people in this discussion presumed that it meant something else.) I'f it's renamed to something like: "military careers of individuals" or some such, that frees the cat under discussion to be renamed to Military careers. - jc37 09:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree that Category:Military careers should be renamed as suggested -- but that doesn't solve our problem, because a career is NOT the same thing as an occupation. Cgingold (talk) 01:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Military professions.--Salix (talk): 18:36, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good idea, but unfortunately professions are for professionals and the military also has a lot of trades. In any case, when does one become a professional infantryman?--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 09:11, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not positive, but I believe that that (or something similar) is a profession, and is listed as such in the military. I'd welcome clarification on this. - jc37 09:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Only officers and possibly career NCOs are considered military professionals--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 01:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree -- only certain occupations are properly referred to as "professions", so that's a non-starter. Cgingold (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been racking my brain over this for days, googling all sorts of word combinations, and I finally hit upon something that might be the answer: "Military occupational specialties". Not only does that term get quite a few g-hits, it also happens to be the exact term that is used by two branches of the US military (army & marine corps) -- and whaddayaknow, there's even an article under that title, Military Occupational Specialty. Obviously, we wouldn't want to use it as a proper name with capitalized words, but the term does encapsulate what we're looking for rather nicely, and applies generically to all militaries, not just the US. So, how about ? Cgingold (talk) 02:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately that would mean expanding an article that is subject specific or renaming the current article Military Occupational Specialty (USA)--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 07:27, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't really see why either would be necessary, especially since that article would not be called upon to serve as the "main article" for the category, given that it IS specific to the US. Cgingold (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be incline to rename the otehr cat Category:Military occupation -> Category:Ocupations by the military --Salix (talk): 06:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment/suggestion - I think I may have been trying to"kill two birds with one stone" in this proposal. Reviewing the discussion, it occurred to me that armed forces are divided between those who are professionals, and those who are temporarily employed in the military services. Career NCOs are so called because they are in general professionals by the time they achieve their rank (6 years at lest), so the category can be split into Category:Military professions and Category:Military jobs. Thoughts? The first category will have an article Military officer that can be expanded to include non-commissioned and warrant officers in addition to field grade and staff grades, while the Military jobs can be covered by the three articles on soldier, sailor and airman as these are the "grunt"-level jobs in the three services--mrg3105 (comms) ♠ ♥ ♦ ♣ 21:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note to admin: Please relist for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You could have done this yourself. — CharlotteWebb 21:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CharlotteWebb
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment Military jobs would be a bad idea, as it could be construed as military missions 70.51.8.75 (talk) 05:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.

South Africa Prisoners

 * 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. Kbdank71 15:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Prisoners and detainees of South Africa and Category:South African prisoners and detainees
 * Nominator's rationale: Having two different categories and subcategories, one for people from South Africa and one more general seems cross over categorization. I suggest they be merged. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  21:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep; first category is a child of Category:Prisoners and detainees by nationality (for people of the Republic of South African who are prisoners or detainees of any country) and second is a child of Category:Prisoners and detainees by country (for people of any nationality who are prisoners or detainees of the Republic of South Africa). If the distinction is not useful, the entire branch needs to be addressed, not simply this one case.-choster (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Choster. I developed the distinction across all countries and nationalities, because there were many people of nationality A who were imprisoned in country B. In other words, nationality and country of imprisonment do not always match. For a good example of the differences that can exist, look at the tiny Category:Prisoners and detainees of Bosnia and Herzegovina and compare it with the large Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina prisoners and detainees. The differences between the two parallel categories may be less depending on the country/nationality, but it's kind of unhelpful to analyse one in isolation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Not all prisoners in South Africa are South Africans themselves. Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Non-violent first-person shooters

 * 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. I must commend the efforts made by those who sought a compromise rename, but as has been pointed out, the suggested renames create many of the same problems that already exist under the current name. This is also a great example of a debate between (1) those who perhaps see categories as things whose meaning should be unambiguous, self-evident, clear on their face, or at least self-explanatory; and (2) those who perhaps see categories as things whose meaning can be crafted precisely and implemented carefully with the use of supporting sources to justify inclusion of articles in them. To quote the oft-referenced sentences from WP:CLN: "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of neutral point of view (NPOV) when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." In this case, it's going to be virtually impossible for an article to be "self-evidently" (i.e., without specific sources) or "uncontroversially" (i.e., without someone disagreeing) assigned to the category by the average WP editor. I think this discussion demonstrates that clearly, if nothing else. One editor described this as "mushiness", which captures the concept nicely. Yes, as was pointed out repeatedly (to the point of it becoming trite)—we can use sources to settle the disputes about whether or not articles belong in the category—but having a source somewhere out there in the universe does not make the game's violence or non-violence or or mildness or whatever "self-evident". On the other hand, WP:CLN goes on to point out that "Lists can be embellished with annotations .... Lists can be referenced to justify the inclusion of listed articles." Since appropriate sourcing seems to be the only way out of the mess of determining what is "violence" or "mild violence", etc., it seems a list will best help us implement the use of "non-violent" (or something similar) as the standard for inclusion. (I'm assuming here that since one editor has started a list, there is no need to keep the category from deletion until a list is made. But if required, I can assist in locating the previous contents of the category for the purpose of creating a list.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * non-violent first-person shooters


 * Nominator's rationale: Nominating this category based upon its ambiguity and the fact that whether a video game is violent is subjective, and because it was previously deleted per this CFD less than 3 months ago and doesn't appear to have gone through DRV prior to being recreated. See also Talk:Portal_(video_game). – xeno  ( talk ) 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum: Just to be clear, I don't necessarily think this category needs to be deleted per se, but it definitely needs refining and some agreement on what kind of titles will be included. I brought it here because it was recreated without a DRV. My opinion is that its current name would preclude games that include violent deaths (i.e. Portal (video game)), even if the main character is essentially non-violent. – xeno  ( talk ) 21:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep: The argument from the prior CFD that it was a trivial category is simple opinion and I disagree with it. There was no debate about the issue last time and I think the prior nom was in error. This is a category is of interest for historical reasons and it is bound to grow in size as Christian video game makes enter the field with titles like Catechumen, etc. This category also contains the entirety of first person sandbox games. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability," so ambiguity is resolved by reliable sourcing. -Thibbs (talk) 20:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify your comment about sandbox games? Many are not first-person shooters at all, so I'm not sure which you are referring to as being relevant to this category. Additionally, keep in mind that predictions about future Christian video games may constitute crystal ball-ism. --Icarus (Hi!) 21:29, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't suggest that the keep be based on the probability of future articles on current games. It is something to consider, though, as this is a growing field. By "first person sandbox games" I mean sandbox games where the player takes the first person perspective. Of course not all sandbox games are first person, however it is also true that all first person sandbox games are non-violent first person shooters. -Thibbs (talk) 21:54, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I need further clarification of the phrase "first person shooter". I can see how something like the Noah's Ark game count as a nonviolent first-person shooter, since you're "shooting" food pellets. But can all first-person games be classified as "shooters"? I'm not completely familiar with video game terminology. Is this a term that is used more generally than its actual wording implies? Or are there no first-person games that don't involve a "shooting" action of some sort? --Icarus (Hi!) 21:43, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a very few first-person games where the player does not shoot. realMyst is an example. The term "non-violent first person shooter" is an oxymoron as has been pointed out, but it is the phrase used to describe games of this kind. I could see an argument for classing a first person game without shooting as a "non-violent first-person shooter" if it is called this by reliable sources. In the article that spawned this whole issue, Portal, the player shoots portals with a portal gun. -Thibbs (talk) 22:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Wait, I don't agree with that. There are definitely non-violent games in which your job is to shoot things.  You just don't shoot them with nasty stuff like bullets.  I think the original three ... HURL, Chex Quest, and Super Noah's Ark 3D, along with possibly the Nerf games if you can accept them as FPS's instead of just a sports game ... would be the best examples of an indebatably truly nonviolent true FPS.  Some of the others, such as Ken's Labyrinth, seem to be nice games written with a childish sense of humor but don't go and dedicate themselves to the goal of nonviolence. Soap Talk/Contributions 11:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's essentially what I said (I don't know if you noticed I had used kind of a double negative in the first sentence). But perhaps I should clarify that when I say non-violent shooters are kind of oxymoronic, what I mean is that shooting could arguably be viewed as inherently violent. The aspect which differentiates non-violent FPS's is that reviewers, marketers, publishers, or the non-violent video game community have identified the game as non-violent in order to increase sales, spread the word, or promote a philosophy. I suggest that this identification is notable as it reflects social movements/reactions to violent video games or to modern religious ideologies, and I think it deserves an article as well as a category. -Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: As was the case last time, I don't have a strong preference as to whether the category remains or not. I was the one who created it, and I added in a few games but didn't add in the Nerf games because I didn't think they really qualified as first person shooters.  But it would seem that someone else believes that they do, and that's good enough for me.  As to the idea that nonviolence is a subjective judgement: maybe so, but every one of the games that I added in was one which specifically used nonviolence as a major part of its promotion campaign; in other words, the programmers were selling it as a nonviolent alternative to mainstream FPS's.  I'm not familiar with some of the newer additions to the category, but I would say as a subjective judgment that an emulation of anything you can do in the real world without hurting yourself (paintball, NERF, laser tag) should count as a nonviolent game by definition.
 * I created this category to give substance to the HURL article, which is almost entirely my work (one person whom I dont know came and changed "Adventure Game Construction Kit" into ACK3D). I was afraid of the article getting deleted.  Now, I'm not really afraid of that, because as I understand it now, all that I need to do to prove a video game's notability is to provide a link to a site where it can be downloaded such that that site is neither mine nor the programmers'.  And I have done that.  That isn't to say that I no longer about this category, but only that I won't be terribly upset if it does get deleted.  That, and the fact that I'm not sure I'm eligible to vote on this anyway, is why I am putting in "Comment" for my vote.  If I had to take a side, though, I would favor keeping it.  Soap Talk/Contributions 22:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If you want to split hairs, one of the games that I put in this category the first time wouldn't make it as nonviolent. Super Noah's Ark 3D has animals that can kill you; in fact, if I'm not mistaken, all of them can.  Your job is to pacify them by throwing food at them (this is why it qualifies as an FPS) before they tear you apart.  I've heard that if you run out of food the game allows you to fight back (rather ineffectively, since you dont get any weapons) but haven't had a chance to play the game recently to verify this.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 23:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as recreated content, otherwise delete as non-defining and subjective. Otto4711 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: as there is no way for the current creator of the category to the speedy due to the fact that he has been banned for flagrant violation of wikipedia policy (bonus points to icarus3!), would it be acceptable for Soap to do the honors as he is the primordial creator? I disagree with the way this deletion process is going forward. Surely there should have been a DRV prior to reintroduction, but wiki isn't supposed to be completely rule-based. There is clearly debate about the issue with numerous editors calling for a keep as opposed to the last time where a snap decision was made without any counter-argument. Wikipolicy says ignore all rules in the interest of the project. Everyone here agrees that DRV should have been followed, but despite that there is solid argument for keep. I think this should count as a de facto DRV. -Thibbs (talk) 16:49, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * With the proper refinement I could see a need for this category, however there needs to be a firm standard from which a game is judged "non-violent". I would agree with using the ESRB's designation. –  xeno  ( talk ) 02:04, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Would verifiability be a firm enough standard for inclusion of the label? It certainly seems to comport with wikipolicy... -Thibbs (talk) 16:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I will admit that, at first, I thought that the title was a bit of an oxymoron. I'm sure I'm not the only person who got a few kicks with a mod of one of the classic shooter games that let you kill a neverending group of Barney the Purple Dinosaur After reviewing the category and the entries therein, it is clear that this is for a group of games that use the first-person model to create non-violent and low-violence games. The fact that these games are essentially different from the parent Category:First-person shooters, which describes itself as "First-person shooters (FPS) emphasize shooting and combat from a specific perspective" and (in a bit of gross understatement) "tend to contain an element of violence." The design of these games, and that they are targeted at children is a strong defining characteristic. The ESRB ratings provide a rather clear inclusion criteria, with classic first person shooters typically rated "M", unlike this category, which includes violent content in its rating system. Alansohn (talk) 15:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Using the ESRB ratings is arbitrary, as it covers only North America and to the best of my knowledge video games are played on other continents. It also gives undue weight to this particular rating over others in violation of WP:NPOV. Note that we do not appear to have, for example, categories based on the motion picture rating system of any country. Otto4711 (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not to sound like a broken record, but what about using verifiability as an inclusion criterion just as in all other categories (see Category guideline #7)? I think this category simply needs a main article, but otherwise to quote from guideline #1, "Categories are mainly used to browse through similar articles. Make decisions about the structure of categories and subcategories that make it easy for users to browse through similar articles." That is exactly what this category is designed to do. -Thibbs (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that an ESRB ranking is arbitrary, although you might have made a far more valid point that it is not all-inclusive. Other, comparable rating schemes exist in other countries and should be added to the inclusion criteria, as should references from game reviews and other articles in reliable sources. Alansohn (talk)
 * I didn't say that the ESRB rating system itself is arbitrary (although, since it's humans making the rating decision, I expect it is). I said that selecting the ESRB as the standard for inclusion is arbitrary. Selecting any rating system or even multiple rating systems is arbitrary because it requires editors to decide which ratings systems to use. Additionally, looking at the definitions of the various ESRB ratings, none of them use the phrase "non-violent". A "C" rating makes no mention of violence whatsoever, merely that the game contains no material that parents or educators would deem "inappropriate" (which is a subjective decision so there's that arbitrariness problem again). An "E" rating means the game may contain "minimal cartoon, fantasy or mild violence." Is a game that includes "minimal" violence "non-violent"? How do editors decide that without resorting to OR or POV? And what if we do select a few different ratings systems and they give the games conflicting ratings? Do we give one precedence over another, in violation of NPOV? Do we categorize them as both "violent" and "non-violent" which seems more than a little absurd? Otto4711 (talk) 18:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no so this is a moot point. You have asked "How do editors decide that without resorting to OR or POV?" See Category guideline #7. If you can reliably source your designation then it is valid. This is the criteria I would propose to allow inclusion. Does this sound reasonable to you? -Thibbs (talk) 21:19, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You left out the critical first question. I asked,  Is a game that includes "minimal" violence "non-violent"? How do editors decide that without resorting to OR or POV?. Editors can certainly source the rating that a game has been given by one ratings system or another but that's not the same as reliably sourcing that the game is "non-violent." Otto4711 (talk) 05:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A game that includes "minimal" violence would be tagged "non-violent" if reliable sources indicate that it is. Using the "reliable sources/verifiability" standard is quite simply how Wikipedia works. There are often disagreements in external sources, but using them does not imply OR or POV (unless you selectively filter). I guess what you're really asking is what can be done if two sources directly disagree. In that case, I believe the standard practice is to present both sides unless one side is clearly fringe. This is not an unsurmountable task. The Category guidelines suggest that WP:V defeats WP:NPOV and I suggest that we use the same standard. How can this possibly be unacceptable? -Thibbs (talk) 14:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And if we have conflicting sources? Suppose Reviewer A thinks that the game "Pie Fight" is violent because the goal is to hit creatures in the face with pies, while Reviewer B thinks that "Pie Fight" is non-violent because, who's ever been hurt by a pie? Do we categorize "Pie Fight" as a non-violent game? Whether we do or we don't, either decision requires editors to choose between two equally reliable sources, which violates NPOV. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, to follow that up, here are two sources sources that confirm at least some amount of violence in Portal. (Yes, they actually use the word "violence" rather than "killing" which apparently (?) doesn't necessarily involve violence). – xeno  ( talk ) 21:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When reliable sources conflict, the answer is to present both sides and not only one or neither. In this case, I suppose that would mean categorizing the game as both violent and non-violent. As the intent of the category is to provide ease of browsing to those interested in the topic of non-violent FPSes in the normally violent FPS supergenre, it is clear that "Pie Fight" would have to be categorized as a non-violent FPS to meet the intent of the category. As I doubt there is any interest in a category for violent games, the seeming conflict is resolved. Does this mean the category is more heavily weighted toward inclusionism? Yes. However by mandating a reliable source standard for inclusions, arbitrariness vanishes. -Thibbs (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: I have suggested at talk in the Portal article that the category is suffering from lack of an article on the topic of non-violent FPSes. I think they both should be created. My arguments for this are developed in more detail here. -Thibbs (talk) 16:54, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:First-person shooters in which the playable characters are non-violent (or something similar) to eliminate the ambiguity that spawned this discussion. – xeno  ( talk ) 22:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC) Delete, too subjective to be worthwhile. –  xeno  ( talk ) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC) changed again to rename per new compromise suggestion below
 * This is a trivial category and a decidedly smaller one based on your definition of non-violence. Any ambiguity may be resolved by proper RS citation as required under the Wikipedia guidelines for categories. -Thibbs (talk) 14:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How's this as a compromise: rename to Category:Non-violent first-person game with the RS/V standard as the criterion for inclusion. This eliminates the argument that shooting is inherently violent and provides a rigid criterion for inclusion in keeping with wikipolicy. Does this work for you? -Thibbs (talk) 16:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I still don't think a game that includes people being shot to death can be called a "non-violent game" by any stretch of the imagination. Your reliable sources do not explain what they mean when they say "non-violent" and the common sense assumption for anyone who has played the game and seen the violence in it is that they are talking about the main character's lack of violence, not the lack of violence in the game itself. –  xeno  ( talk ) 17:03, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I have shared with you 6 reliable sources that demonstrate that Portal is considered a non-violent game despite the fact that the character can be "shot to death." We both, as editors of wikipedia, must put aside our common non-neutral incredulity and instead we must bow to reported sources. This is the only way wikipedia can exist as a reliable encyclopedia. -Thibbs (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And I have shared with you sources that demonstrate that Portal is a game in which GLaDOS attempts to kill Chell in violent ways (i.e. shooting, incineration, etc.), and you tried to tell me that inferring that attempting to kill someone is inherently violent was synthesis. –  xeno  ( talk ) 22:38, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:First-person shooters in which characters only shoot at inanimate objects to avoid make sure no violence sneaks into this category (think of the children) delete. — CharlotteWebb 02:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reason. -Thibbs (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — Potential for original research or speculation. What makes a first-person shooter violent; that is, where do you draw such as line between violent and non-violent? MuZemike  17:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It is not up to editors to draw the line. The lines have already been drawn by reviewers, marketers, and gaming communities. It is the job of the wikipedian to craft articles (and supporting categories) that present these viewpoints verifiably (i.e. through reliable sources). If there is a conflict between what two editors believe to be the proper categorization then the editor who has reliable sources to back up his arguments wins the case. When there are arguments on both sides then both view points should be presented. Questioning the inability of the reliable sources to make their categorization may weaken the sources but this must occur on a source-by-source basis and it is inappropriate as an argument against the use of reliable sources as the basis for inclusion. -Thibbs (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Further opinions have been sought here. – xeno  ( talk ) 17:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, as an example of just how subjective "violent" is, I've had Katamari Damacy described to me as a rather violent game, on account of all the screaming people. Nifboy (talk) 21:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is nothing subjective about using reliable sources to back up a categorization. -Thibbs (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't think it's very useful to use categories that are this specific. Additionally, there's the question of how to define "non-violent", which isn't as easy as it seems. A list (List of non-violent first-person shooters) might be a better idea, IMO. --Conti|✉ 21:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A category would be more unobtrusive in that it generally wouldn't distract from the flow of the articles. Further, it would aid in multi-directional navigation which is what readers would probably be most interested in. There is no need for the detail achieved through embellishment of detail of a list since all relevant detail is already given on the member article's page. The issue of inclusion criteria is still present in a list and thus a list is not a solution but rather an inferior alternative that leaves us with the same problem. -Thibbs (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A list would distract even less from the flow of the articles, since it wouldn't appear in them at all. :) The inclusion criteria are obviously not that simple, otherwise we wouldn't have the argument elsewhere about whether the category should be included in Portal (video game) or not. A list could give more details, have references and could differentiate ("This game has no violence whatsoever, that game has no violence from the player character", etc.) where needed. --Conti|✉ 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If the intent is to maintain the same degree of multi-directional navigation, which I suggest is most likely to be the thing most readers of this category/list, then creating a list would require linking all members of the list to the list or all members of the list to all other members of the list under a "See also" subcategory. It seems to me that maintaining the multi-directional aspects of the category while restricted to using a list produces a much greater distraction than simply a category in the footer. As far as the inclusion criteria are concerned, the only argument that has been offered as to ambiguity here come from editors whose personal definitions of non-violence conflict with reliable sources. This is not a valid argument because at wikipedia the second pillar states "Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and presenting no one point of view as "the truth" or "the best view." It means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics." -Thibbs (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * My basic point stands that this category is too specific. We shouldn't categorize things just because we can. I don't see any need for multi-directional navigation in the first place, either, which is why I prefer a list in this case. A list would also have the advantage that we could use references, while we're at it, which is certainly needed in cases like Portal (video game). --Conti|✉ 19:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it's appropriately specific considering that the supergenre of "First-person shooters" are almost universally violent and thus this is a distinct subset. I have suggested the compromise of renaming it Category:Non-violent First-person game. Is this compromise more appealing to you? There are a number of communities for whom non-violence (however it is defined) is important and for these people the category would be of interest. Multi-directional navigation would allow users to browse related articles on topics that interest them simply by knowing of one of the games on the list. For example, if a user likes the game Portal due to its relative non-violence and is interested in learning about similar games, then s/he could use the category to link to an array of other non-violent games. Employing a list for this purpose presents a number of problems:
 * 1 - To find similar games the reader would have to be able to guess that the game in question was labelled a non-violent game (something that would be immediately apparent by using a category)
 * 2 - To find similar games the reader would have to guess the name of the list (something that category use eliminates) unless every game on the list had a link to the list
 * 3 - Attempting to enforce crosslinks from articles on the list is error-prone, makes editing the list taxing, and counteracts the ease-of-editing benefits lists otherwise enjoy.
 * 4 - Lists are easily bogged down with entries that cannot be reliably sourced and do not meet the requirements for inclusion in Wikipedia.
 * The advantages that a list provide for referencing can easily be applied to a category by introducing a tag to the top and creating an article on the topic. I have actually begun work on such an article in my sandbox. What do you think? -Thibbs (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I renew my objections to the use of the phrase "non-violent" whether in a list or a category because it has no objective definition, either in the context of gaming or outside of that context (some adherents of non-violence reserve the right to defend themselves or others; other adherents do not). Locating other games can be solved by adding a "see also" link to the list. As far as lists being bogged down with unsourced or non-notable entries, that's an editing issue. I fail to see how adding a catmore tag and writing an article on NVFPSes will address the sourcing issue for items included in the category, unless you include a reference for each game listed as "non-violent," in which case you already have a sourced list so why have the category? And your draft article reads more like it should be called Violence in video games as it is mostly about that general topic and includes next to nothing about NVFPSes or other "non-violent" games. Otto4711 (talk) 17:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This reasoning is clearly deficient considering that it completely neglects the standard criterion for inclusion of verifiability by citation to reliable sources. By the argument advanced here, Category:Violent incidents in the United States should also be rejected as impossibly ambiguous. In fact, membership in the "Violent incidents" category is defined just as this should be, by reliable sources presented in the articles themselves as well as in the main article(s) given in tags. The suggestion of using a "See also" tag is rather awkward as there are at least 18 members of the category and more probably exist. Sure, a list could be used, but it is clearly an inferior option as my prior post has demonstrated in detail. -Thibbs (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - if it's a shooter, there's an implicit element of violence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk  ) 22:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How's this as a compromise: rename to Category:Non-violent first-person game with the RS/V standard as the criterion for inclusion. This eliminates the argument that shooting is inherently violent and provides a rigid criterion for inclusion in keeping with wikipolicy. Does this work for you? -Thibbs (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Portal still does not fit. Games that include violent deaths are cannot be categorized "non-violent". First-person games with non-violent objectives perhaps... – xeno  ( talk ) 22:35, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Xeno, you are mistaken about what cannot be categorized as "non-violent." We use a standard of verifiability at wikipedia so as long as there is a reliable source showing that a game is recognized as non-violent then it can be classified as a non-violent game. Personal opinion and original research have no place in wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Think of the children. – xeno  ( talk ) 22:47, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No. -Thibbs (talk) 22:50, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think that at least two of the games currently in this category (HURL and Chex Quest) are such that everyone here can agree they are 1) nonviolent, and 2) first-person shooters, and hence qualify as "nonviolent first-person shooters". At least, I would be surprised if anyone objected to this description and would like to hear an explanation of why.  Now as for the rest of them, the case becomes less clear.  Many games are clearly FPS's and were promoted by their publishing companies as nonviolent, and have often been described by reviwers as nonviolent, but in some cases this seems to mean only that the violence in the game is significantly muted as compared to what exists in games such as DooM.  Examples of arguable cases of this type, I would say, include Noah's Ark 3D and Ken's Labyrinth.  In Noah's Ark, you can't hurt the animals, but they sure can hurt you.  In Ken's Labyrinth, from what I can see, it has just as much violence as a normal FPS, but no blood and the illustrations are on the whole fairly abstract.  Then there are games that clearly meet the nonviolence criterion, but may not meet everyone's definition of a first-person shooter.  I would say the Nerf games fit in here, and maybe NRA Gun Club (which I have never played).  In summation, I will defend to the end my claim that there is such a thing as a nonviolent first-person shooter, but I think that the total number of unarguable examples of this subgenre amounts to two, and that two is likely too small to fill a viable category, and so if this category is to have much meaning, we must either expand the definition of the category or accept marginal cases that not everyone would be happy with.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 22:54, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately the argument for ambiguity that editors seeking deletion will employ is that the see violence in Chex Quest and HURL since the main character can be hurt. I recently was impressed to see one of the editors here claiming to consider Minesweeper to be a violent game due to the presence of explosives and the fact that the smiley face character gets 'X'es for eyes when you click on a mine. To reduce this argument ad absurdum, one could argue that Microsoft Solitaire is violent due to the use of explosive fireworks upon winning the game. That an argument of violence exists for clearly non-violent games is being used here to undermine the realisticness of a category that describes such an allegedly ambiguous term as violence. However, this argument presupposes that conflicted definitions for violence are an unresolvable matter then in fact they are not. Wikipedia has a policy that addresses exactly this issue and provides a clear criterion for resolution of such an issue, and that policy is WP:V. I am quite aware that many editors do not believe that games characterized by reviewers, developers, and the non-violent gaming community as non-violent are in fact non-violent, however this argument is an appeal to WP:TRUTH and thus, counterintuitively to some, it violates WP:V. Verifiability always trumps Truth. This is one of the most fundamental precepts upon which Wikipedia operates. If editors disagree personally then they are free to start their own blog and entertain the world with their own personal view, but as long as their arguments consist of nothing more substantial than MPOV and WP:OR, these arguments cannot fail to be disregarded. -Thibbs (talk) 19:16, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We shouldn't shoehorn articles into categories they don't belong just because someone found a handful of sources to support an erroneous claim. They deserve a mention in the article, but the category is inaccurate (in the case of Portal), plain and simple. – xeno  ( talk ) 19:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a perfect example of an unsourced but blogworthy MPOV. -Thibbs (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it's an example of categorizing things accurately. Sources are not required when things are patently obvious: i.e. people being shot to death == violence in a video game. – xeno  ( talk ) 20:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as I explained in the example above, despite the "patent obvious[ness]" of the violence inherent in explosive fireworks, Microsoft Solitaire can only be sourced as a non-violent game. Likewise, there are a number of games where violence occurs but the game is considered a non-violent game by reliable sources even despite this. The point of the category is to provide a collection of first-person games which have been considered by reliable sources to be non-violent despite the fact that certain sensitive individuals might see violence at every turn. -Thibbs (talk) 21:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thibbs, I don't believe that anyone could seriously claim that HURL and Chex Quest could be considered violent games.  As one of the catchphrases on the original CD for HURL said, "The only thing that gets hurt in this game is your pride."  There is absolutely no violence at all, in any direction.  It's the Dora the Explorer of shooters.  Chex Quest is in the same category, and if Pie Fight were a game, I'm sure it would be too.  If someone wants to write up a review page saying something like "Hey, splashing a cat with soap and water is not very nice!! This game is not appropriate for children!!" then okay, but the game came out fifteen years ago so I don't think many major game magazines would be interested.  So I'm sticking by what I said yesterday, namely that I think there is a pretty nigh inarguable case for HURL and Chex Quest being in this category, but that it is possible to define the category so strictly that they would be the only two games within it.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 22:55, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that those are both non-violent games. I think there exist perfectly reliable sources to support characterizing them as non-violent. Similarly sourceable are most if not all of the games that were listed under the Category when this discussion began (one has been removed by User:Xenocidic since discussions began). I think that if sources are available that indicate that a FPS is considered non-violent by reviewers, marketers, and the non-violent gaming community then we should tag it as a non-violent FPS even if by some editors' definitions any game that includes "zorching" enemies, getting "slobbed", or throwing pies is violent. -Thibbs (talk) 23:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Including the "new" additions to the category (e.g. Ken's Labyrinth and Portal) is a gray area I really don't want to get involved in, though, since I don't really have a firm opinion myself as to whether they should be included or not, and what the general WP procedure is for "gray area" categories. Sorry.  However, I just peeked at your sandbox and I think it's amazing.  Did you create that all just now, or has it been existing somewhere for a long time and I just wasn't aware?  If so I vote for creating an article out of it as soon as we can get some sort of guarantee that it won't immediately be deleted.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 23:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * OK I can respect that. Hopefully future arguments here will make your decision for you. Thank you for your compliments on my sandbox. I have been working on that for the last two days on and off. Unfortunately I'm very busy off-wiki at the moment and I will have no time at all to work on it or to contribute here between tomorrow and some time next week. I would like to use that article with a tag in the category here in question, but I hesitate to put it into mainspace before some kind of consensus is reached here. I have asked a few editors' opinions of it and I have received mildly favorable feedback from User:Xenocidic. I welcome others' thoughts and I hope the article will illustrate for those weighing in here that there are a number of games (and first-person shooters) which do contain violence but which have been characterized by reviewers, marketers, and members of the non-violent gaming community as non-violent (and non-violent first-person shooters). These would be the games I believe would be most appropriately grouped in the category under dispute. -Thibbs (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete (Weak Listify) - The problem (as noted in this discussion) is that "violence" is apparently in the eye of the beholder. And the suggestion that the WP:OC violating word "mild" be added makes this problem worse. - jc37 10:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As I have been repeating ad nauseam, there is nothing subjective about using reliable sources as corroboratory evidence. As long as this is enforced, subjective opinion should not be able to enter into the category. -Thibbs (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Compromise: "Mild or no violence"

 * How about a rename to Category:First-person video games with mild or no violence ? – xeno  ( talk ) 23:42, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think this compromise is a good idea. As to the idea that it's too subjective, what is the generally understood WP policy for handling gray areas?  I mean, have  there ever been back-and-forth edit wars over the question of what exactly belongs in Category:Science_fiction_short_stories ?  I would think that that would be quite a subjective category, and yet it still does exist, so I have to assume that being clearly defined is not a necessary requirement for a category.  Anyway, I wish that Thibbs had not suddenly disappeared, so I could hear what he wants to say.   <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 01:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The compromise seems to solve both disputes (whether something is a shooter, whether something has no violence whatsover). "First-person video games with little to no violence" rolls off the tongue better but I think "mild" is a better term to use. – xeno  ( talk ) 01:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Glad I could hit the computer lab for lunch break. I am much happier with a compromise like this or what Icarus describes below. I feel like this CfD had outlived its usefulness and although I am not fully satisfied, I have always used that as the measure of a good compromise. Whatever ambiguities persist will be dealt with though WP:V/RS means just like every other category in the entirety of wikipedia. Consensus will develop on the Category talk for what "mild or no violence" means, but I think most editors should be able to agree to a consensus by examining the treatment of the games by the sources reviewing/marketing them. In conclusion I agree to this compromise. -Thibbs (talk) 16:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately because this is also a "de facto DRV" and we've others !voting delete, we'll have to let a neutral admin close it rather than the nom (i.e. me) withdrawing in favour of the compromise. Glad we could (eventually ;>) agree on something. – xeno  ( talk ) 16:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete While I applaud Xeno's attempts at a compromise, I think this is doomed to be too subjective and open to interpretation no matter what it is called. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:41, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Non-violent first-person game or the Category:First-person video games with mild or no violence compromise. I personally don't like category names that are as wordy as the latter option, but it is a more precise description. I personally would prefer calling it "non-violent" and then defining "non-violent" in the category introduction as really meaning "mild or no," but that would probably just create more confusion. There should be a caveat in the introduction, however, that there must be a valid 3rd party source (e.g. the game's rating) to support the claim that it has little or no violence. I personally feel that while it is a rather specific subset of games, it's a useful category to have as some gamers have a preference for first-person games that aren't just shoot-em-ups, and this category would be one useful reference to learn about such games. --Icarus (Hi!) 03:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As has been noted already, with no objective definition of "mild" this is just as prone to OR and interpretation as "non-violent". Otto4711 (talk) 05:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why I said there would have to be a valid 3rd party source. A game rating from the ESRB (or a similar, widely recognized rating board) or a well-known game review publication specifically noting a game's minimal violence ought to be sufficient to satisfy verifyability. --Icarus (Hi!) 16:12, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As Icarus says, reliable 3rd party sources shatter the argument of objective ambiguity. There are a number of other "Category:Violent X" articles on Wikipedia that derive their existence from use of the verifiability using reliable sources inclusion criterion. The argument that violence is indefinable is incorrect. -Thibbs (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Violently delete. Poorly defined criteria, oxymoronic definition. Many of these games are in no sense non-violent (Portal) or aren't first-person shooters (NRA Gun Club) or aren't shooters (Ken's Labyinth) or aren't even games (Garry's Mod). The category members are mostly dissimilar, to boot: a random hodgepodge of games that did not influence each other, do not share common influences, and did not collectively affect later games. The lead is especially hilarious, considering members of this category predate traditional first-person shooters (Ken's Labyrinth), do not seek to ape them save in control conventions (Elebits), or could not in any sense be considered to be in response to controversy (Portal). This category is a Really Bad Idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:45, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are a number of problems with this analysis, the primary one being that much of it is irrelevent to the discussion. Yes, Elebits does share the same control conventions but differs in its non-violence. This is meaningless to the discussion. Yes, Portal was not created in response to controversy. That is fairly apparent from the article on Portal but is meaningless in the context of this discussion. There are also some factual errors: Ken's Labyrinth (1993) is distinctly a shooter, for example, and I'm not sure what is meant by "traditional" FPSes, but I belive most video game player would agree that it doesn't get any more traditional than Wolfenstein (1992)... As far as the only meaningful argument (that the category is poorly defined) is concenred, I have repeatedly suggested that citation to reliable sources, as in in the case of all other Categories on Wikipedia should be sufficient for inclusion. If a debate between categorization occurs, then deference must be given to the one with reliable sources. Where reliable sources conflict, both views must be presented. These endlessly repeated despairing arguments that everything is subjective and we can always find sources to the contrary are belied by the continued use of categories on Wikipedia. As yet there has been no serious considerations of this category standard (#7). -Thibbs (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per nom as recreation, or delete per A Man In Black. The meandering discussion above well illustrates the mushiness of this category.  Postdlf (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - poorly defined category; what counts as 'violent' is so subjective that any inclusion of a game in this category (beyond a few extreme cases like Super 3D Noah's Ark) unavoidably raises issues of neutrality and original research. There isn't a clear line between 'violent' games and 'nonviolent' ones, but rather various degrees in between; hence, this category will always be inherently problematic. Terraxos (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep if renamed to Category:First-person video games with mild or no violence or a similar compromise version that allows for both "non" and "mildly" violent games - this way the subjectivity of the level of violence is somewhat alleviated. I do think a category of this nature has merit. Thibbs makes convincing arguments that if we can reliably source enough parties to claim a game is either "non" or "mildly" violent, we can put it into this category. I would urge the closing admin to keep in mind that the votes for "Delete" are mostly looking at the category as named which I agree is infinitely subjective, making it impossible to agree on inclusion criteria. The "mild or no violence" compromise is workable. – xeno  ( talk ) 23:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose the suggested compromise as being every bit as subjective as the existing category name. Otto4711 (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose compromise proposal per WP:OC. - jc37 10:53, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question: What would be the harm of using reliable sources to identify members of this category for inclusion in the article? Is there any harm? I have heard an enormous number of claims of subjectivity and ambiguity, but (1) WP:Subjectivity is a NPOV issue this is fully cleared up by employment of the policy at WP:RS and (2) Ambiguity is addressable in-Category. To quote from WP:DAB, "Any article with an ambiguous title should contain helpful links to alternative Wikipedia articles or disambiguation pages, placed at the top of the article" If we are concerned that non-violence or violence may be misunderstood then this is where the I have suggested would be super effective. I invite those interested to see what I am hoping the catmore would look like at my sandbox. -Thibbs (talk) 16:57, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * If required, because the average person (looks at the various editors above) isn't sure of the dividing line for inclusion in this category, then the category should probably be a list, per WP:CAT.
 * And as a list, you would gain all the benefits that you speak of, while minimising the negatives that others in this discussion are concerned about. - jc37 21:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Stub-Class Indian music articles of unknown-importance
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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, empty; not populated by the template as stated in the category header. Kbdank71 15:18, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * stub-class indian music articles of unknown-importance


 * Nominator's rationale: Capital U in Unknown created (instead of speedy rename). This is related to the Wikipedia India project template, where all articles with Stub class and Unknown importance are already tagged to the category with capital U in the name. VasuVR (talk) 18:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy close and relist at Stub types for deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as empty. This category is part of WikiProject Indian music and not stub sorting and the classifications are controlled by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Jewish organizations based in Israel
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Category has begun to be populated, and as IZAK points out, "organizations based in Israel" is somewhat broader than "Jewish organizations based in Israel". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * jewish organizations based in israel


 * Nominator's rationale: This category is currently empty, having been a parent category to Category:Organizations based in Israel until today. In fact, since Category:Jewish organizations is used for organizations of ethnic Jews, both religious and not, this category would contain virtually all of Category:Organizations based in Israel if used properly. Therefore this would not seem to be a useful distinction. Eliyak T · C 13:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Populate & keep I see what you mean but, of the ones in the Israel category, the Jewish Agency for Israel and the Jewish National Council are surely "Jewish organizations" in a way the Jerusalem Institute for Market Studies is not? It would be better to move over the more obvious cases, leaving a note pointing to the Israel category for less clear-cut ones. Johnbod (talk) 13:47, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A meaningful distinction within the Category:Organizations based in Israel structure. Alansohn (talk) 20:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And Category:Jewish organizations too. Johnbod (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep because: (1) this is a sub-category, with great potential, of a number of other parent-categories, as correctly pointed out by User:Johnbod above. (2) This category is also part of a series of exactly similar sub-categories, such as: Category:Jewish organizations based in Russia; Category:Jewish organisations based in the United Kingdom; Category:Jewish organizations based in the United States; Category:Argentine Jewish organizations created so far, with more no doubt to come, that are all sub-categories of Category:Jewish organizations by country, and (3) to destroy this category would create a puzzling gap and a gaping wound in the series of categories about Jewish organizations by country, so that (4) it is both illogical and counter-productive that other countries should have such categories for them but not Israel, home to half the world's Jews, and which is the center for a huge number and range of uniquely Jewish organizations -- and (5) it should be noted that not all organizations in Israel are Jewish or Jewishly-connected such as those connected to Islamic, Christian, international and Arab citizens of Israel. IZAK (talk) 09:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, it was you who created this category ad then placed Category:Organizations based in Israel inside it, thus confirming my point that it is not a useful distinction. --Eliyak T · C 11:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Eliyak: I do not see any contradiction and I surprised that you make this comment, because both are true, so that while Category:Organizations based in Israel is a valid parent category for all sorts of organizations in Israel, and there are many non-Jewish organizations in Israel such as those affiliated with Muslim, Christian, international, and Arab Israeli ones, and hence Category:Jewish organizations based in Israel is a vlid sub-category. Feel free to create and populate Category:Islamic organizations based in Israel or Category:International organizations based in Israel of which there are quite a few. IZAK (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions.   IZAK (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions.   IZAK (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 13:21, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:National/Local Campsites of The Scout Association
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Campsites of The Scout Association. Kbdank71 15:19, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:National/Local Campsites of The Scout Association to Category:National and local campsites of The Scout Association
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. capitalization. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 06:45, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know much about The Scout Association, and this category structure seems a bit underpopulated, but why not go with Category:Campsites of The Scout Association and avoid the whole national / local issue? Is there any reason to keep this all-inclusive pair in the category title? Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Campsites of The Scout Association per Alansohn. There might be a case in future for national and local subcats, but not yet. Occuli (talk) 20:27, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are we likely to get more articles on these camps? If not, it might make sense to just upmerge to the parent. One article, a redirect and a subcategory seems to say we can remove one level in the tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Campsites of The Scout Association; we can create subcats in the unlikely event this category fills up. --—— Gadget850 (Ed)  <sup style="color:darkblue;">talk  -  13:16, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * cool by me so long as the caps are correct. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * 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:Psychological anime and manga
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) 22:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * psychological anime and manga


 * Nominator's rationale: I feel this categorization is based on personal feelings and original research. A query to the creator as to what the criteria might be was ignored. Almost all anime and manga has some psychological aspects to it, by very little of it has psychology as its defining aspect, and deciding for ourselves which qualify and which don't does not seem appropriate.

Beeblebrox (talk) 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Creator's rationale: First off, the page was created to pick anime/manga that are separate from others of it's kind. Yes, almost all anime have some kind of "psychological" aspect to it, but what I intended was for certain ones to reflect hugely based upon the morals of the theme, characters' point-of-view, and goals. The ones I specifically picked, have a twist, or notion that creates non-stereotypical advancement in them. While certain series are indeed psychological, that only refers to the protagonists mind alone, and never really consider any outside influence. To summarize: My category associates with all characters' psyches, adding up to the big climax(literally being the case, EX:Neon Genesis Evangelion), in contrast to Beeblebrox's assumption that by simply picking a few that have no particular reason to call it "psychological", I have deemed all other anime/manga "un-psychological". To remedy this predicament, I will modify the page to explain what I meant. Thank you.Otaking07(talk) 19:55, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That seems awfully subjective. Genres, I think, should be clear-cut and not open to interpretation.--Nohansen (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I don't know what to make of this category. Having it inside Category:Horror anime and manga implies that it is meant for psychological horror anime and manga, but the creator's choice examples don't scream "psychological horror". The category needs to be defined before deciding between keeping or deleting.--Nohansen (talk) 03:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There are a few anime that come to mind that would be "psychological" but not "horror", so this would possibly be a useful category after it has been defined properly. -- Highwind888, the Fuko Master (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment I've just read the expanded rationale that has been added to the category, and I have to say it did not assuage my concerns at all. In fact, it seems to be attempting to define a new genre without having any sources other than user's own observations to warrant inclusion in this genre, or indeed the existence of such a genre. Without a clear definition based on some sort of verifiable information, inclusion or exclusion from this category will be far too subjective. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:55, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. We really shouldn't have genre categories for genres without articles. Psychological fiction currently comes up red, so I'd normally be inclined to delete. But then I tried google, and discovered google scholar gives results for the term (in quotes) going back about 40 years, so it's clearly a notable (if somewhat ill-defined) genre. So the category's clearly valid in theory, we just don't have an article defining the term it's attempting to classify by. --erachima talk 05:20, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete based on erachima's comments. Go write the article first, let's not put the cart before the horse. Hiding T 08:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per the reasons given by Hiding. Dimadick (talk) 13:22, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete until we have an article on Psychological fiction and a Category:Psychological fiction so big that it will have be depopulated and the entries re-categorized into sub-categories like this one.--Nohansen (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hiding and Nohansen - as it stands now, the criteria for this category seem far too subjective and original research-y. Create the parent article and cat, properly define the genre using reliable sources, and then wait for the cat to get large enough for depopulation before recreating this category. It would also be worthwhile to find out if any reliable sources define "psychological" as an anime/manga genre, and classify series as such, as that would allow you to momentarily ignore having to define criteria for inclusion (but you would still have to come up with them). — Dino guy  1000  17:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete following Hiding's reasoning. It also sounds like the kind of thing that would need sourcing to an expert analysis (given the subjective nature of this making inclusion criteria almost impossible to define) and so a category may never suit this approach - a sourced list seems preferable. (Emperor (talk) 02:58, 11 October 2008 (UTC))


 * 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.