Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 31



Category:Fictional Earthlings

 * 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 delete. G5 -- ferret (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting fictional earthlings
 * Nominator's rationale: Heavy if not complete overlap with Category:Fictional humans which should be empty. -- ferret (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Haleth (talk) 15:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting the creator is now checkuser blocked. -- ferret (talk) 20:53, 31 May 2022 (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:Pine Bluff, Arkansas-related lists

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting pine bluff, arkansas-related lists
 * Propose deleting redfield, arkansas-related lists
 * Nominator's rationale: Miscategorization. Populated only by a subcategory that contains no lists. DB1729 (talk) 11:59, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:09, 7 June 2022 (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.

Video games set in a fictional location

 * 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.  ✗  plicit  01:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting video games set in a fictional location
 * Propose deleting video games set in a fictional country
 * Propose deleting video games set on fictional islands
 * Propose deleting video games set on fictional moons
 * Propose deleting video games set on fictional planets
 * Nominator's rationale: Utterly non-defining category family - many games are set in a "fictional location". (While genre can be important - e.g. "space opera" - whether it takes place on a fictional planet or a real-life planet heavily fictionalized is irrelevant.) Note that the creator of said category was blocked for sockpuppetry and creation of inappropriate categories. Aside from it being non-defining, there is no clear inclusion criteria either - how much of a work needs to be on an island? What if the island is the size of Great Britain? Australia? etc. SnowFire (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete, clear example of WP:OCMISC in the context of categorization by location. Being set in a real location is useful to track the portrayal of the location in popular culture, but a fictional location is just a random name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to the counterparts without "fictional". For example, "Video games set on fictional islands" should go into "Video games set on islands". "Planets/moons" should go into "Video games set in outer space". "Country" would be a problem because the entire category tree would need a reckoning in that case, not just video games. I for one would probably support deletion of both the entire "country" category tree as well as "fictional location" itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not agree with an overall merge for islands or countries. By all means recategorize to an ocean category if it concerns a fictional island in a real ocean, or recategorize to a continent category if it concerns a fictional country in a real continent. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I did say that "countries" is an exception. But for islands, whether a game is set on an island can certainly be defining, although whether the island is fictional or not, likely isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep as valid & well-populated intersections of e.g. (for islands) Category:Video games set in a fictional location, Category:Video games set on islands and Category:Works set on fictional islands. If not kept, upmerge to all parents. But I see no rationale for wiping out categories of video games without simultaneously dealing with all other media in Category:Works by fictional setting, e.g. Category:Films set in a fictional location. There was consensus to keep most of those at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 13, excluding fictional populated places. (The top one was subsequently renamed at Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 14, categories by continent were merged at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 8, and fictional galaxies were deleted at Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 4.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:04, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would be happy to delete the entire structure as well, but one thing at a time (and note that at least one of the votes in that discussion complained about a trainwreck, i.e. too much being discussed at once). For video games specifically, if this category was truly populated, it would be added to 70%+ of all VG articles - truly non-defining in the context of video games, at least. More generally, it's describing a distinction without a difference. If there's a Spider-Man game that's set in a heavily fictionalized version of "New York City", I guess it doesn't qualify? But if there's a Superman game set in "Metropolis" but that includes obvious NYC-inspired elements, it does? There's no actual difference here, both settings are NYC-ish and inspired, yet this category structure would include one but not the other. I already mentioned above the trivial example of whether a sci-fi setting happens to make up the name of a star completely, or use a real-life star (but invent wild details), is just not important. The "realism" of such a sci-fi work might be interesting and critically discussed, but whether a real star/planet name was used is the most trivial possible version of realism. SnowFire (talk) 22:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. JBchrch  talk  01:25, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: This was originally closed as "upmerge", but both the closer and a consensus at Deletion review/Log/2022 May 30 concluded that this was the wrong close. Thus, this discussion is reopened and relisted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The setting of video games, or games being set in fictional places, is actually a reasonable defining feature, but I tend to agree that we should handle the broad question of all types of works and not just the focus of video games. I would think that a category like "Fictional countries in video games" would be the more reasonable approach. --M asem (t) 03:48, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not very defining. Especially since the "fictional island", could be like a real island and you just gave a made up name to, or it could be a fantastical island that has no real connection. It could even be super like a real island, but you just gave a fake name to avoid diresctly offending someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. I want to be clear here: I don't mean that the setting of every game is a defining feature. This vote has no bearing on the use of these categories on games with non-notable settings, and SnowFire is correct to call for the deletion of the category on games whose settings have not been treated as central features by reliable sources. However, I believe a blanket deletion is not suitable here; even a cursory Google search turns up a spate of reliable-source articles that treat game settings as definitive features: "Top 50 Video Game Worlds" from IGN; "10 of the Best Video Game Worlds" from Stuff; "10 Best Video Game Worlds We Wish We Could Be A Part Of" from Screenrant; "From Zelda to Grand Theft Auto: 10 of the best game worlds to get lost in" from The Guardian; "The Richest Scifi and Fantasy Worlds in Video Games" from Gizmodo; "The most spectacular game worlds you can explore on PC" from PC Gamer; "7 video game worlds we most want to visit" from CNN; "6 video game worlds we actually want to live in" from AV Club. There are a huge number of RS articles along these lines, treating a fictional and/or fantastical world as the central feature of the game. So, my vote is to keep the category, to reflect the RS coverage of those games that are defined by their worlds; using the category for every game with a fictional world is misuse, but using it for those games' worlds that have been specifically put front-and-center by RSes is an accurate reflection of source coverage, and should be kept. Phediuk (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, time and experience has shown that this is not a feasible long-term approach for category maintenance. Category maintenance is inherently decentralized: many editors across the project will add and remove categories. The only way to preserve sanity is with clear inclusion criteria, one of the core requirements of categories. For example, there isn't any wiggle room on "Alumni of College X": either the subject attended college X or they didn't, there's no need to ask whether the attendance was considered notable enough by biographers. To the extent the sample linked articles are reliable sources (some of these are weak listicles IMO - the GameRant article includes stuff like Rocket League and generally seems content-farmy), they can absolutely be covered in prose in the articles, but it doesn't mean that they're good sources for creating categories. A standard like "Video games set in fictional countries, but only if you can find a source talking about the country" would just lead to an endless edit war over whether the one paragraph in this one review that discusses the setting is "enough" coverage if the criteria was actually enforced. In practice, it wouldn't be enforced, the category would just continue to be a verification of the current scattershot practice of adding the category to articles at random. Anyway, what you describe is already sort of done: we already have Category:Video game locations and Category:Fictional countries and subcategories for categorizing countries/islands/etc. that are so notable that they deserve standalone articles, e.g. Mushroom Kingdom. But those categories already exist. (And I wouldn't object if someone wanted to take a hack at writing some child article of Setting (narrative) using some of the sources described above to make Video game setting or the like, but that'd be a prose article, not a category.) SnowFire (talk) 18:49, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete as failing the purpose of categories, which is to link related entries together based on significant characteristics, not link what are in effect almost entirely unrelated entries based on some trivial fact (to take a random example, Bubble and Squeak (video game) clearly has no link whatsoever, beyond the trivial fact of being video games, with Gears of War 2; and yet, both are in the same fictional location category...). There are already far more pertinent and precise categories for these, ex. Category:Star Wars video games; and in those as well as other cases this only leads to category clutter. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Cautious Keep Regardless of the person who created the categories, there is merit in having subcategories within the broader term of being set in a fictional location. --ProtoDrake (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Video games can easily be known for their locations (GTA, BioShock, etc.), and while many games have extremely non-descript locations to the point where these categories should not be used, enough have to not simply delete them. But I would say that using video games as a test case to see about other similar categories in other media (eg Category:Films set on fictional planets) is the wrong approach, if there is an honest question about these types of categories, they should be addressed with a test case for all media types, not for just video games. --M asem (t) 12:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If you mean some video games are set in a particular fictional location then I would not mind having a category for that location. But a general category for all fictional locations together is pretty meaningless. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * J would tend to agree we need to have a discussion of when these categories apply; a game set in a non decript city should not have thus cat, while games like GTA where the city is given its own "character" (named, some basic narrative about the city, etc) would apply. But that's likely a need for a wider discussion across all media. --M asem (t) 15:51, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's interesting to me that you mention GTA, because being on an island is not a defining characteristic of the game, and I've been questioning whether it should be in the "set on islands" category at all, fictional or not. I mean, yeah, technically San Andreas is an island, but the game is very deliberately based on a fictionalized version of Southern California. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that the category content has been restored it appears that Category:Video games set in Atlantis is (so far) the only category that collects video games set in a specific fictional location. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Video games can be known for their settings, of course, but when that's true, they can be in a category that actually has meaning. These categories are meaningless - as came up in the DRV, many of the articles in, say, "games set on fictional planets" have absolutely nothing to do with one another.  As for the comment on "a game in a non-descript city should not have the cat", see my reply to Phediuk above - that kind of discretion is not something well-suited to categories, where a clear inclusion criteria is a requirement.  A category description that says articles should only be included if the setting is interesting enough is not tenable nor maintainable.  SnowFire (talk) 21:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: category contents (mostly, at least) restored. &#8213;  Qwerfjkl talk  18:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Weak keep It is often clear where video games are set in clearly fictional settings, but there may be works which are simply set in an unidentified, generic location. Also, some fictionalized versions of real settings are indistinguishable from purely fictional settings; for exmple, it is ambiguous if the planet PNF-404 from the Pikmin series is Earth. However, the category can be defining in many cases where it is unambiguous, and that is certainly the case for Category:Video games set in Atlantis . –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 20:31, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To be clear, Category:Video games set in Atlantis is not under discussion - I agree that's fine. When it's defining, there'll be a more specific category about set on Mars, set on Middle-Earth, etc.  SnowFire (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree with Fayenatic london's arguments. I also view setting as always defining for works of fiction. Dimadick (talk) 02:26, 6 June 2022 (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:Gandhians
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 29%23Category:Gandhians

Category:Liam Payne EPs

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting liam payne eps
 * Nominator's rationale: Category not required for a single entry. ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 10:42, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep - part of the large established scheme Category:EPs by artist. The artist is the paramount defining characteristic of an EP. Oculi (talk) 12:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep – Oculi has hit the nail on the head; it should be kept per WP:SMALLCAT as it is part of "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Placing it in would be inaccurate as it's not an album. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:07, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I misunderstood the guidance so yes maybe it should be kept. EPs are a secondary type - describing the form/type rather than the release its. We don't have EP charts - only single and album charts. Either a single or album can be released as an EP, CD or LP type. Liam Payne EPs shouldn't sit inside Liam Payne Albums but the one EP he has released is also an album as well as an EP. All EPs are either album's or singles. Anyway that's a slight;y different discussion happy for this to be kept on the basis of WP:SMALLCAT ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 11:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The established scheme is for albums not album sub-types. There is no requirement or smallcat exemption for an act's live albums to be categorized under "Live Foo albums", compilation albums to go in "Foo compilation albums", nor is there a requirement for someone's EPs to be categorized by "Foo EPs". This makes sense when an artist has say 25 studio albums, 15 compilations albums, 10 live albums, and 5 EPs, not when an artist has articles for only 1 album and 1 EP in its entire discography. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 01:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So all EP categories with a single entry should be deleted? Due to the artist in question still actively releasing music, there is an eminent possibility that the contents of this category will grow, and there is precedent to keep categories which form part of an overall sub-categorisation scheme, regardless of how few entries are part of it. Sean Stephens (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * many EPs are not notable for an article of their own. Take artists who release dance remixes of their singles, many release remix EPs of the main single. The Single itself gets an article but the EP doesn't. If the categorisation tree is correct it should start with "Foo releases" followed by "Food EPs", "Foo Singles" and "Food Albums". ≫  Lil- Unique1  -{ Talk  }- 13:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying it doesn't meet the SMALLCAT exception because it is not a "well-established" scheme. WP:ALBUMS specifically states albums in general terms not its subtypes. Foo EPs, live albums, and compilation albums have been created in numerous cases but in just as many if not more they have not been created and it does not say it is necessary to do so in the style advice for albums. From my own experience, this subcategorization can be overcategorization and an impairment to navigation when there are very few albums to further subdivide. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 03:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: SMALLCAT's "Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page" is quite clear language-wise. I don't see any reason why EPs should be excepted from that language, though given the difference of opinion here that's probably worth a larger discussion. QuietHere (talk) 06:13, 31 May 2022 (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.

Template:2022s-album-stub

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting


 * Propose deleting category
 * Nominator's rationale: If this was needed, the correct name of this stub template should be 2022-album-stub but typically such stub templates are done by decade (e.g.2020s-album-stub). Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 02:08, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. A quick skim through Category:Music stub templates shows the naming precedent quite clearly. QuietHere (talk) 06:07, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete: wrongly named, unused, empty, and redundant anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per above -- Lenticel ( talk ) 01:09, 7 June 2022 (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.