Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 5

Category:Card video games to Category:Video card games

• Merge, New category made today exactly duplicates an existing one. 2005 23:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Doczilla 00:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge - "X video games" seems to be the far more common construction of the subcats of Category:Video game genres. Otto4711 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into category:Cardplay video games. Neither current name works well: "card video games" breaks up two common phrases so they become meaningless, and "video card games" suggests they're games for video cards. "Cardplay" is a common term in card games, so it seems like it would work here.--Mike Selinker 02:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While "card video games" fits the more common naming pattern for the parent category, it is basically incoherent, whereas "video card games" is crystal clear. As for "cardplay", the word is not common, and virtually never used except in a bridge context, so that would not be a good solution. 2005 03:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I thought "video card games" had something to do with video cards when I saw the name. Otto4711 03:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Card video game is not a term used. video card game is... 600 versus 20,000 certainly makes it clear what common usage is, even if any way you say it could be misinterpreted. 2005 03:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, except few of them are for what this category is about. If you look, you will see that most of them are about video cards. The category name makes no sense.--Mike Selinker 05:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. There certainly are both, but its plainly clear that video card games is used about 100 times more often than "card video games" which of the 600 mentions only a small handful, maybe single digits, are for the confusing formulation suggested here. Video card games is straightforward, accurate, makes clear sense and is used far more than the alternative choices. We aren't here to invent things, or use non-standard terms. And of course the previous category has been there for some time. Merging should go from non-standard to standard, brand new to existing, not the other ways around. 2005

Merging should go from whatever doesn't work to whatever does, and if consensus is that "video card games" is ambiguous and "card video games" is not then "card video games" it should be. If "card video games" is somehow ambiguous (not quite sure how it could be, but if it is) then Category:Playing card video games would be an acceptable final name as well. Otto4711 18:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Esoteric templates to Category:Intricate templates

To match template placing templates in this category ({{intricate template}}, formerly {{esoteric}}). David Kernow (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pubs in Cheshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Public houses in Cheshire, convention of Category:Public houses in England. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom and create a redirect, because "pub" is the widely-used abbreviation, so the categ will likely be recreated. --07:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC) Merge for consistency, with redirect for "pubs". Belovedfreak 15:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:True vipers - Synonymy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:True vipers by taxonomic synonyns, by common naming conventions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:22, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are over 600 entries (almost all redirects) in this category that would all have to be relabeled. In my opinion, this seems like way much effort for very little gain. However, if the entries can all be relabeled automatically with a bot, I would not be opposed. --Jwinius 21:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there are scripts that do this kind of thing. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. If you think you can pull it off without damaging anything or making a mess, you have my permission to proceed (no one else is involved). --Jwinius 23:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:True vipers - Common names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:True vipers by common names, to match normal naming conventions. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There are almost 130 entries (mostly redirects) in this category that would all have to be relabeled. In my opinion, this seems like too much effort for very little gain. However, if the entries can all be relabeled automatically with a bot, I would not be opposed. --Jwinius 21:46, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course there are scripts that do this kind of thing. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wouldn't know that, but I'll take your word for it. If you think you can pull it off without damaging anything or making a mess, you have my permission to proceed (no one else is involved). --Jwinius 23:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian right (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, as recreation of deleted content, CSD G4. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Special:Whatlinkshere/Category:Christian right doesn't show any previous CfD, and there's no deletion history. Can you provide a link to a previous CfD? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_19#Category:Christian_Right -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Follow the link above - it was "Right" then. Delete per nom Johnbod 20:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and if not alreday done, listify. Rgds, --Trident13 21:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, but not as recreated (because the prev CfD was over 6 months ago and rather cursory). There is a useful discussion of the problems of this term at Talk:Christian_right#Weasel_words, where to my mind the crucial factor is some research which supports claims that the term "Christian right" is predominantly used by opponents of the group they identify. That supports my personal experience that friends who might fit the general usage dislike the term (sometimes vehemently), so as far as I can see the evidence is that it's a contested POV term, and hence unsuitable as a category. Even if it wasn't contested, there doesn't seem to be any way of defining it tightly enough to make clear inclusion criteria, so it end up as a rather severe version of a categorisation-by-opinion category; this is actually a case of categorisation-by-label-which-someone-else-attaches-to-an-alleged-nexus-of opinions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective, judgmental category. Doczilla 23:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep:

  Greetings everyone!

  I vote keep (: only to be expected as this category's creator. :)

  I created this category in the course of moving articles out of Category:New Right (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). For most articles, no reliable sources were given to justify membership in New Right.

  I needed a term to describe politically-active social conservative Christian individuals and groups:

  Conservative Christianity

  This does not work because it describes an approach to values and Bible interpretation, as opposed to political activity. "Generally those seen as belonging to conservative Christianity give priority to traditional values and traditional beliefs and practices. It is sometimes called conservative theology—is an umbrella term covering various movements within Christianity and describing both corporate denominational and personal views of scripture. ... It is often said that Conservative Christianity and Liberal Christianity are polar opposites, though many liberal Christians would not agree. There is general agreement that their [approach to Bible interpretation] are quite different."[1]

  Evangelical Christianity

  Even though this contains a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues, it does not imply political activity. Additionally, as a classification, it excludes some conservative Christian groups.

  Fundamentalist Christianity

  Even though this contains a belief in the relevance of Christian faith to cultural issues and politics, it excludes many conservative Christian groups. Many groups consider it pejorative, and self-identify as "conservative" or "evangelical".

  I was unaware that "Christian right" was pejorative. I welcome renaming the category to something that is not pejorative!

  Thank you, Prove It, for opening this discussion. I value consensus.

  --Kevinkor2 13:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. There is already Category:Conservative organizations in the United States. Would a Category:Christian conservative organizations in the United States be workable? My two concerns are first that it should be a neutral term, and secondly that it should have clear inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:30, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla Sleep On It 21:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loyalists in the American Revolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:British loyalists in the American Revolution, as duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 20:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the other way per nom Kevin Myers below. I did wonder. Johnbod 20:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the other way around. You've got it backwards: "British loyalists" is poor wording: All Loyalists were British subjects; the modifier is redundant. In fact, "British" (or "American") is the completely wrong modifier for a very few Loyalists, like Mary Brant. So, the correct procedure should be:

Keep Category:Loyalists in the American Revolution (the correct wording)

Delete Category:British loyalists in the American Revolution (redundant or misleading wording)

Delete Category:American Loyalists (equally redundant)

I was going to nominate these for deletion, but you beat me here. I see now that I should have listed Category:British loyalists in the American Revolution for renaming first, so you would have known what I was up to. I'll know next time! —Kevin Myers 21:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been better to just nominate the old category for renaming. However, I do agree with your reasoning. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This category encourages the listing of articles which violate WP:NOT#HOWTO. The only two pages currently categorized here are: 1) a page currently listed for deletion at AfD (for the same reason, WP:NOT#HOWTO), and 2) the user page of the category's creator Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 19:42, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category, little or no opportunity for growth. Otto4711 16:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Irrelevant intersection. The category serves to promote a political agenda (mainly in the U.S.), as the introduction makes pretty clear. Non-neutral. Brandon97 13:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitup into Category:Extraterrestrial life and Category:Extraterrestrials in Ufology for hopefully self-evident reasons. It's not a good idea to group Back-contamination and Greys together. --Pjacobi 13:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also

Delete. Recreation of deleted category. Category:Fictional universes was renamed to Category:Fictional settings[2] prior to being deleted[3]. -Sean Curtin 06:43, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category with no likelihood of growth. The song and album subcats are housed in the appropriate category trees and the articles are interlinked through the Beatles and Sheridan articles and elsewhere. Otto4711 03:56, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]