Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 7



Category:Railway Teams

 * 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: split.  I will have the bot rename Category:Railway Teams to Category:Railway sports teams and then a subcategory can be created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Railway Teams to Category:Railway sports teams and Category:Railway association football teams
 * Nominator's rationale: As a minimum, rename to Category:Railway sports teams which would be more standard, but there are sufficient football teams to make that a useful sub-cat (and which would have a better fit with the soccer-related parent Category:Association football teams). – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
 * support splitting - it is an interesting category but is poorly named, 'railway sports teams' would be much better.--EchetusXe 15:31, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support -- I suspect this is about teams that originally consisted of railway workers. This is an interesting intersection, though now probably largely only of historic interest.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 10 October 2016 (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:PlayStation 3 games without trophy support

 * 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) 01:03, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting playstation 3 games without trophy support


 * Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CATDEF and is WP:NONDEF. The lack of this feature is not a defining characteristic of these video games. It is not something that would ever mentioned in the lead of an article or even in the article at all. It's essentially just a category for games released before the date when the feature was introduced. It would more logical to create Category:PlayStation 3 games with trophy support, but even that is WP:NONDEF because this is a trivial feature. The1337gamer (talk) 07:08, 7 October 2016 (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:Works based on Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment

 * 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. (Color me amazed that such a scheme exists.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Works based on Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment to Category:Works based on Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment video games
 * Nominator's rationale: Renaming in line with other subcategories of Category:Works based on video games by company. Trivialist (talk) 00:21, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom The current name suggests the works are based on the company itself. Dimadick (talk) 06:00, 7 October 2016 (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:Uncracked codes and ciphers

 * 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. It appears that nominator already implemented the rename. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Uncracked codes and ciphers to Category:Undeciphered historical codes and ciphers
 * Nominator's rationale: I've been doing some copyediting on our Outline of cryptography page and came across the "Uncracked codes and ciphers" subsection. As this section pertains mostly to as-yet-undeciphered documents of historical interest, such as the Voynich manuscript, I have retitled it as "Undeciphered historical codes and ciphers". I think this makes the classification clearer, as it could be contended that most of the modern ciphers listed in the sections further up the outline article (such as AES, for example) are "uncracked", due to the computational infeasibility of any attacks against them that would lead to the ciphertext being decrypted without knowledge of the key. I'm proposing that the category of 14 articles, which also uses the "Uncracked codes and ciphers" name, might be more accurately titled under the "Undeciphered historical codes and ciphers" name too. &mdash; Alex Haydock 09:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Support -- The target is a better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:49, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- per Peterkingiron's reasoning. JonathanDP81 (talk)12:41, 13 October 2016 (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.