Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 2

< February 1 February 3 >

February 2

Category:The Legend of Korra 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: merge. SQLQuery me! 02:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only two entries and unlikely to grow, as the TV series is over and the two games weren't very successful.  Sandstein  21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Live Musical Television Specials

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We might need to think about, and extrapolate any further examples from the golden age of television. This is a legitimate category of television that has become a trend lately. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This category relates to music-based specials, and not musical as in a musical theatre. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:19, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:N-Gage 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: no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguate as per N-Gage (device) and N-Gage (service). PanchoS (talk) 09:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[Platform] games Games for [Platform]
  • Adventure Vision games
  • BeOS games‎
  • BlackBerry games
  • Browser games‎
  • Calculator games‎
  • CD-i games‎
  • CD32 games‎
  • ColecoVision games‎
  • DOS games‎
  • Facebook games‎
  • Fairchild Channel F games‎
  • FM Towns games‎
  • FM-7 games‎
  • Game.com games‎
  • Gizmondo games‎
  • GP2X games‎
  • Handheld video games‎
  • HP 3000 games‎
  • Intellivision games‎
  • IQue games‎
  • Linux games‎
  • Mainframe games‎
  • MSX games‎
  • MSX2 games‎
  • N-Gage service games‎
  • NEC PC-6001 games‎
  • NEC PC-8001 games‎
  • NEC PC-8801 games‎
  • NEC PC-9801 games‎
  • Neo Geo CD games‎
  • Neo-Geo games‎
  • PC games‎
  • PC-FX games‎
  • PLATO games‎
  • R-Zone games‎
  • RCA Studio II games‎
  • Sharp MZ games‎
  • Sharp X1 games‎
  • Sharp X68000 games‎
  • TurboGrafx-16 games‎
  • TurboGrafx-CD games‎
  • Unix games‎
  • Vectrex games‎
  • Videopac games‎
  • Windows games‎
  • WonderSwan Color games‎
  • WonderSwan games‎
  • Xerox Alto games‎
  • Zeebo games‎
  • Games on Sony platforms‎
  • Games on Sega platforms‎
  • Games on Nintendo platforms‎
  • Games on Microsoft platforms‎
  • Games on Commodore platforms‎
  • Games on Atari platforms‎
  • Games on Apple Inc. platforms‎
Fleet Command (talk) 09:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:People associated with Sparta

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) 23:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC. Additionally, these people have nothing to do with each other. One was an enemy of Sparta, one is a modern historian, and the third was a Spartan. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Legal writing

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. Editors may move some of the content from Category:Legal communication to Category:Legal writing if appropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as redundant. Virtually all legal communication other than live courtroom argument is in writing, so almost everything in either category would need to be in both. Having them as separate categories increases maintenance overhead for no reason, and is confusing to readers and editors. An alternative to plain merge might be to have separate categories for legal writing and legal oratory, with both in a container category called legal communication that contained no very few (e.g. A/V material) "loose" articles itself.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WT:WikiProject Law has been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I support the partial reverse merge idea proposed below, with most of the material going into the "writing" child cat., and the "communication" parent one being retained for that subcat. and for what doesn't fit in that subcat.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge, however, I do think Legal writing should be (as it is) a subcategory of Legal communication. A couple of the articles in legal writing should probably be moved, and indeed I've moved one of them already. That said, the nominator is incorrect in assuming that all legal communication in written form is "legal writing." Legal writing refers to specific types of communications reflecting legal analysis and theories, rather than any and all written communication dealing with the law. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 21:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're mistaken in asserting that I'm incorrectly assuming something. (I worked at a non-profit law firm for 9 years as a policy analyst, so please check the assumptions. :-) We don't have articles about "any and all written communication dealing with the law"; on a quick skim, everything here that's not oral-argument-related appears to be "specific types of communications reflecting legal analysis and theories", either in the abstract or as applied. If it were possible for something to be notable and to constitute random writing about that law that isn't really legal writing, it wouldn't be in either of these categories, since it wouldn't qualify as "legal communication"; that parent cat. constrains the contents of the legal writing child cat. A plausible example might be an article on, say, Treatment of legal cases in mainstream journalism. That would be in a journalism category, not in either of the two categories named here. It's possible your sense of what "legal writing" means here is really "legal scholarship", but I'm not certain. If we want a category limited to abstract legal material of that sort, it should be clearly named, not be called "legal writing", which any reasonable person (given WP's categorization system) would also take to include more prosaic things like wills and cease-and-desist letters, as well as probably also things that are legal in the generative sense, e.g. the writing of constitutions, legislation and regulations. The crux of the matter is that there are written and there are spoken legal communication, and not much else that's notable. I suppose an article on the use of video evidence and 3D simulations in court could be categorized as legal communication and not entirely be written or spoken, but it's an outlier. Almost everything in the parent cat will be one or the other.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but merge most of the "communication" content into "writing", and retain "communication" for the few items that may not fit into "writing".  Sandstein  21:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge retaining "communication" for the few things that are not written, possibly as a subcat. We have a main article Legal writing but no main article for the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose to avoid complications keeping the child and parent categories coherent. Partial reverse merge seems fine too. Johnbod (talk) 05:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Defunct college football programs

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 London 14:59, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is effectively a duplicate of Category:Defunct college football teams. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really that odd at all. One category has been around since 2008. The other was just created the other day by a relatively inexperienced editor who probably was unaware of the pre-existing category. Do we really want to merge these? That will result in both the article and the category for each team sitting in the merged category. Wouldn't that be a case of overcategorization? Jweiss11 (talk) 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Jweiss11: The guidelines give us 3 options here. I usually use #1 that looks like this: Category:Universities and colleges in Colorado but a straight delete would also be an improvement here. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:09, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Albums produced by Allan Sherman

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sherman did not usually produce albums. No reason to categorize by producer if the person is not a producer and doesn't have any other production credits. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Right-libertarianism parties in the United States

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. SQLQuery me! 02:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose expanding scope of a blatant WP:NARROWCAT. Anyway a misspelling, as the adjective is "right-libertarian". PanchoS (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participant Mangoe after I clarified the rationale; of course proposing a dual upmerge. --PanchoS (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Objectivist parties in the United States

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: Upmerge. SQLQuery me! 00:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose expanding scope of a blatant WP:NARROWCAT. PanchoS (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Defunct social liberal parties in the United States

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: Upmerge. SQLQuery me! 00:21, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Blatant WP:NARROWCAT. PanchoS (talk) 00:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Defunct classical liberal parties in the United States

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: Upmerge. SQLQuery me! 00:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Blatant WP:NARROWCAT. PanchoS (talk) 00:47, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Fiscally conservative parties in the United States

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: Upmerge. SQLQuery me! 00:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose expanding scope of a blatant WP:NARROWCAT. PanchoS (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Socially conservative parties in the United States

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: Upmerge. SQLQuery me! 00:31, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose expanding scope of a blatant WP:NARROWCAT. PanchoS (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participant Oculi after I clarified the rationale; of course proposing a dual upmerge. --PanchoS (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The fact that this party gets in the category but the Republican Party, which in general is socially conservative, does not, shows these categories are way too fine.
  • Upmerge to the conservative party category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Economically liberal parties in the United States

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. SQLQuery me! 00:32, 6 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose expanding scope of a blatant WP:NARROWCAT. PanchoS (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants Oculi and Mangoe after I clarified the rationale; of course proposing a dual upmerge. --PanchoS (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Libertarian conservative parties in the United States

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: Upmerge to Category:Conservative parties in the United States. SQLQuery me! 00:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose expanding scope of a blatant WP:NARROWCAT. PanchoS (talk) 00:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participant Oculi after I clarified the rationale; of course proposing a dual upmerge. --PanchoS (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Defunct centrist parties in the United States

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: Upmerge. SQLQuery me! 00:33, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Blatant WP:NARROWCAT. PanchoS (talk) 00:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Paleolibertarian parties in the United States

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. SQLQuery me! 00:36, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose expanding scope of a blatant WP:NARROWCAT. PanchoS (talk) 00:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging participants Oculi and Mangoe after I clarified the rationale; of course proposing a dual upmerge. --PanchoS (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.