Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 15



Category:Lego video games

 * 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. —  ξ xplicit  00:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Lego video games to Category:Lego games
 * Nominator's rationale: These seem redundant... if there is a difference in scope, I'm not seeing it. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:52, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Lego video games should be a subcategory of Lego games, although the latter will probably be very sparse. Lego board games isn't a video game so both are needed. Tim! (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge I see no reason to seperate out the video games from the other games. This is also not seen by many other editors since most of the Lego Games category is video games.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are about 30 Lego board games, and so distinguishing that these are video games makes sense.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but then the Lego games category needs to be more clearly defined and not include tons of video games. –Drilnoth (T/C) 22:49, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine with me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Category:Lego games should contain Category:Lego video games as a subcategory, just as Category:Video games is a (sub)subcat af Category:Games. jnestorius(talk) 21:12, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's what I meant. The "Lego games" category itself shouldn't have video games, this subcategory should. I'd withdraw this, but other people feel it should be merged, so I'll leave it up to the closing admin. –Drilnoth (T/C) 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep the Lego video games separate from Lego games in the interest of content organization. gidonb (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2011 (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:Marvel Comics characters with accelerated healing

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:09, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * marvel comics characters with accelerated healing


 * Nominator's rationale: This is a trivial intersection which does not usefully categorize these articles. What constitutes "accelerated healing" is additionally subjective in the context of a comics franchise. Simone (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment You may be right, but Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability has a lot of stuff like this, it seems to me. At the very least, the parent Category:Fictional characters with accelerated healing is no more less trivial than the Marvel subcat, imho. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the subcategories of Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability are fine to me, because they usefully categorize the fictional characters by their major abilities. The issue with the "accelerated healing" category is that there are very few super-heroes who have "accelerated healing" as their main ability. There are so many Marvel comics characters which do have accelerated healing to some extent or another that it's difficult to see how this could be useful. If kept, the category probably requires extensive clean-up to sort out articles which don't really belong in it, like Mister Immortal, who can regenerate himself once dead, but otherwise has no magical healing powers. The parent category suffers from the same problems. Simone (talk) 07:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You might want to CfD tag the parent and some of the siblings, too, in that case. I see there's a DC category. Or perhaps it's best to use the Marvel grouping as a test case. Your call. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:18, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Probably better just to deal with this case at the moment. I'll make a multiple nomination of some related categories if there is consensus to delete the Marvel cat. Thanks. --Simone (talk) 17:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete most categorizing of fictional characters by ability is not useful. The added intersection of specific creator and ability is that much less useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 18 September 2011 (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:G.I. Joe Live Movie media

 * 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 capitalisation is best sorted out separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:G.I. Joe Live Movie media to Category:G.I. Joe Film media
 * Nominator's rationale: To correspond with the naming of similar film categories. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:14, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Not sure what other categories you may be referring to, but surely "film" should be lowercase, as it is not part of any proper noun? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see: in fact, all the sub-categories of Category:G.I. Joe media have similar mistakes in the capitalization of common nouns as if they were Titles: Animated, Toy, Comic, Live Movie, etc. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:43, 15 September 2011 (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:Big 12 Conference football stadiums

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * big 12 conference football stadiums


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. There's no need to categorize college football stadiums by conference. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:54, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Agree. Tenuous connection at best between these stadiums. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:15, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's also the situation that this conference seems to be shedding members at an alarming rate, so this category requires updating.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually it would seem that any stadium that has ever been a big-12 stadium should be in this category. We leave dead people in Category:American historians, and so we should have any stadium that ever was part of a league in the league related cateogry.  If a football team swiitched its stadium we would include both old and new stadiums in the cateogry.  There is no reason to limit this category to stadiums currently used by the Big 12.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:00, 20 September 2011 (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:American Revolution media

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:11, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:American Revolution media to Category:Works about the American Revolution
 * Nominator's rationale: The category description states that this is a category for such creative works as "books, plays, poems" etc., etc. -- none of which are considered "media" in Wikipedia, as agreed in many prior CfDs. This does not appear to have been created by Stefanomione. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:19, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Rename. While we're on this subject, I've nominated all the rest of the categories in Category:Media by conflict as well.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:30, 18 September 2011 (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:I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! navbox templates

 * 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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:45, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! navbox templates to Category:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! navbox templates
 * Nominator's rationale: Per main article and cat, WP:CAPS, WP:ELLIPSIS, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 15 September 2011 (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:I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! contestants

 * 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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:I'm a Celebrity…Get Me out of Here! contestants to Category:I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! contestants
 * Nominator's rationale: Per main article and cat, WP:CAPS, WP:ELLIPSIS, etc. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 15 September 2011 (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:Article Feedback Pilot

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
 * article feedback pilot


 * Nominator's rationale: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Article Feedback Tool is now deployed throughout all of en.wp, so this category does nothing. If I'm mistaken, I will withdraw the nomination. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is needed any more, but I suggest leaving a message at Wikipedia_talk:Article_Feedback_Tool to make sure.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * This may safely be deleted.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2011 (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:J.Williams (singer)

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus to delete, but will be renamed to add the space where it's needed. —  ξ xplicit  00:49, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
 * j.williams (singer)


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Most of the entries here are just pictures and if that was enough to warrant an eponymous category, there should be eponymous categories for nearly everyone with an article. But categories in general should be based on article content, not images or audio files. Eponymous categories for music artists are generally not kept when there are just albums and songs per WP:OC, because they can all be typically linked from the eponymous article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete This is rife with problems. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but rename to Category:J. Williams (singer) per J. Williams (singer) (space). There are no obvious problems; the images are now in the established Category:Images of musicians, which is standard. (Some of the images could be put in Category:J. Williams (singer) album covers, although most are not albums.) Occuli (talk) 11:55, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, images are not articles and are not a reason to create an eponymous category. Otherwise, since most music artists with albums/songs categories have images of their album/single covers, this could result in needless eponymous categories for all of them. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying that. The issue is how many articles and subcategories there are. There's no reason the images can't go in an images subcategory, and then one considers the articles and subcategories all together by asking—is there enough for an eponymous category here? Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - parent category for Category:J.Williams (singer) songs, which has eight articles in it. If nothing else, it can be used to navigate through the subcats. --Simone (talk) 07:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete It is long established that a songs category does not mean we have to have a category for the singer of those songs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Since I commented above I wanted to emphasize that I don't really have an opinion on this case one way or the other. It would be nice if we could sort of find a happy medium rule-of-thumb cut-off in which the eponymous category guideline is activated for musicians, but it seems to be a difficult issue on which reasonable editors disagree. I don't know what the answer is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Rename to J. Williams and keep as a useful root for articles about the J. Williams albums, songs etc. gidonb (talk) 21:14, 30 September 2011 (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.