Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 October 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Codename Lisa (talk | contribs) at 07:27, 8 October 2013 (→Misinformation in the nomination: No sweat. This category is growing by the hour, defying the narrow definition. I'll just renominate it in one year, when its maintenance and redundancy is so manifest and pro-feminism bias failed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< October 1 October 3 >

October 2

The Real Housewives cast members

  • Delete Category:The Real Housewives cast members
  • Nominator's rationale This looks to be a performer by performace category. We do not categorize people by what specific TV shows they were cast members of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WP:OC#PERF. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:52, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible keep - I've never paid any attention to this show, but I have the impression (for example, from the fact that this category is included in Category:Participants in American reality television series) that this is a reality TV show and that at least some of the "cast" are not actors playing a role, but rather are "real people" who are notable for their involvement in this show -- and for whom being in this show's "cast" is a WP:DEFINING characteristic (similar to the various "contestants" and "participants" in other reality TV series). If that impression is valid, this category may deserve to exist. On the other hand, if my impression is incorrect and this show isn't a reality TV show, then this category shouldn't exist and Category:The Real Housewives shouldn't be in Category:American reality television series. --Orlady (talk) 17:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Yet another Performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I paged past this category I don't know how many times without realizing it wasn't for Desperate Housewives cast... Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep - As I understand it, the reasoning behind eliminating PERF categories was two-fold. First, a prolific actor can star in many different TV series and films over the course of a career and if they were all categorized it would create clutter on their articles, lessening the overall utility of the category system. Second, while starring in a show is likely defining for the stars, not every redshirt from every episode of Star Trek is defined as a "Star Trek actor" but would be categorized as such anyway, leading to unwieldly and less useful categories. The bulk of participants in reality shows traditionally were not already celebrities before joining the cast. Their appearance is what got them over the threshold of notability and since there weren't going to be articles on every single reality television participant there weren't necessarily going to be the sort of occupational categories to suit them the way that general performer categories like those for actors or singers. Not having show-level categories means that individuals will be lost in a huge generic participants category. There has also been a proliferation of people over the last decade whose only claim to fame is their participation in a particular reality show, so the same thinking that went into deleting PERF categories for actual performers may not apply. A single category out of a relatively large structure is not the proper way to examine the larger questions, so keep this one and open up a larger general discussion at an appropriate venue. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think there are enough participants from this franchise to provide for having their own category. And as this is a very popular franchise, along with the other franchises listed in the Participants in American reality television series category, I don't see any reason as to why this one this doesn't fit. Arilicious (talk) 22:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#PERF....William 12:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim sportspeople

Category:Wikipedia essays giving advice

Nominator's rationale: I don't see any/much difference in meaning between "essays giving advice" and "guidance essays" (if there is a significant difference perhaps someone could explain it on the category pages and link them to each other then I'd happily withdraw this CFD). The reason I've suggested merging in this direction is that there's a template that adds the "guidance" category to pages (both categories were created in early 2010 and contain 100+ essays). DexDor (talk) 04:43, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikipedia:WikiProject Essays have been notified. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 September 23 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't see any significant difference in the meaning of the two titles, but in practice the two categories are being used differently.
  1. Category:Wikipedia essays giving advice consists overwhelmingly of advice on editor conduct and attitude. 50 of the 101 essay titles begin with "do not" or "don't". Many others have similar themes: Candor, Negative energy, Nobody cares about your opinion.
  2. Category:Wikipedia guidance essays is much more varied, but much less focused on conduct and attitude.
So I suggest that the best solution will probably be to merge the two categories as proposed, but create a new category for the essays on on editor conduct and attitude. I can think of various titles which might work, but I think that the best route would be to seek some consistency, and follow the model of Category:Wikipedia behavioral guidelines by creating a new Category:Wikipedia behavioral essays. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pie throwing

Nominator's rationale: Unfocused category. Pieing and List of people who have been pied are the only obvious members; everything else is only tangentially associated with pieing at best. For instance, it's far from the main thing associated with a cream pie, or Roscoe Arbuckle, or Soupy Sales. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 11:18, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2013 September 22 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Video games featuring female protagonists

Nominator's rationale: Hi. Almost all video games have female protagonists. In fact, the only video game without a female protagonist that I know of is Company of Heroes. We need a category called "Video games not featuring a female protagonist". Codename Lisa (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale is blatantly false, see the sub-section below. --Niemti (talk) 10:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And seriously, if you won't take it back (not rephrase, but say: "I misinformed you, my rationale was completely untrue"), I'll take it to ANI. I've spent too many hours (a two-digit number) compiling this list for someone to delete it based on such a brazenly false statement. --Niemti (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, Diego. This assessment has a minor problem: It contradicts with your original stance of "racing and abstract games" not feature female protagonists. You see, if one change the context from games to protagonist, those racing and abstract games stay out because the metonymy fails on them. (This might not be a problem with languages like French that allocate grammatical gender but in English, they are gender-agnostic.) From a neutral point of view, seeing a video game that is gender-free as such is a bias. Absence or presence of female protagonist only gains due significance when there is a matter of gender-sensitivity, not technicality. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 17:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Extremely few non-karting racing games feature only female protagonists, but they do exist. One example of a singular protagonist who is female is Chase: Hollywood Stunt Driver, or strictly racing: Hot Chix 'n' Gear Stix. And yes, there are also games with only male protagonists. And I just realized I forgot to add the driving games to the category. --Niemti (talk) 11:27, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Codename Lisa: From you comment about the gender of words in French, I gather that you thought I was applying the property of "female" to video games? This is not what I meant; the defining property for the set of articles I was talking about was "game that has a female protagonist" (the female character being what all games have in common), not "game that is female". If you didn't think that, I don't understand what you mean by "seeing a video game that is gender-free as such is a bias". Diego (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite, I think their point there was that many Romantic languages (French, Spanish, whatever) assign gender to abstract objects. I don't see how that has anything to do with a protagonist, though. Ansh666 00:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and about your idea of split with "non-playable female protagonists" - the only such game I can think about right now is Bioshock Infinite. If there are more, it's literally a handful - in almost all video games, the protagonist is a player character. So, no. --Niemti (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few others like Ico, Galatea or Facade. Instead of a split, it can be a non-strict non-difussing subcategory. Diego (talk) 18:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too few in "a few", really. The ratio of playable to unplayable is like 100:1 or more. --Niemti (talk) 06:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yup - that's why I'd find a separate subset useful, to better find those few exceptions more easily. Diego (talk) 09:40, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're interested in the subject so much: another such non-playable (and female) protagonist is in Lifeline. But I see you no longer want this split after all? --Niemti (talk) 11:52, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that diffusing in subcategories would be useful, but that doesn't require deleting the main category; and sub-categorizing by genre would be better than by the player-NPC axis. Thanks for the link! Diego (talk) 11:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think just "with non-playable protagonists" (as in: gender neutral) would make a better category in that case, if you believe it's useful (I have no opinion). Also I like I said below, a spearate category protagonists with customizable gender would make a better split, because it's potentially misleading (neither I nor no one else didn't notice it before) for readers to say it's just "female protagonists" when you can choose the gender - quite a lot of Western RPGs have this option, and some other games too. --Niemti (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's already "a tighter definition". --Niemti (talk) 08:33, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems though that the current contents of the category should be trimmed down. Games like Batman: Arkham City don't look like a "game featuring a female protagonist" in the same way that Tomb Raider, Cauldron or Baraduke. (Unless there's something about Batman that we've missed all these years...). This discussion seems to come from the category being populated with games whose female characters don't live up to protagonist. Diego (talk) 15:51, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Batman: Arkham City has Catwoman campaign. --Niemti (talk) 17:36, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then the Catwoman campaign should be listed, not the whole game. I'll try to fix that by including a redirect in the category. Having "Batman: Arkham City" listed as a game with a female protagonist didn't help me find out about this campaign; as the Plot section didn't depict her as a protagonist. This shows that the category has some problems, but those can be fixed; overall, it allows navigating the topic to find female protagonists - so it serves its main purpose. (For example, I've learned today that Samus Aran was not the first human female protagonist in a video game; I couldn't have done that without the category or an equivalent list). Diego (talk) 17:42, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It would be if, it had a separate article. Let me help you find it within the article: Batman: Arkham City#Downloadable content. And of course Samus wasn't first, whoever told you so? --Niemti (talk) 17:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was right there in the Guinness World Records book. I generally don't know much about the relative release dates of classic video games, as they arrived randomly to my country; a systematic list thus helps me to find out particular details better than article prose, which by its nature will be limited to report some particular details and not others. Diego (talk) 09:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It was "in a mainstream videogame", maybe by "mainstream" they meant the first smash hit in the West. (Cauldron was also a hit, but it was a "computer game" when "video games" were console titles.) --Niemti (talk) 10:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Being female is far too common to merit having such a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am withdrawing this on the basis that I was apparently misinformed. I have not researched the subject. Nevertheless, I am dubious as to the merits of female categories, which being a woman is not crucial to performacne of the role. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP, and not just because of the false nomination rationale - And what Codename Lisa is completely false, actually female protagonists are RARE. Mind you, there are many thousands of game articles on Wikipedia, and this category is pretty much complete now - there's hardly any more. What's also important, it's a pretty big issue right now, with a lot of feminists and journalists complaining about it in the media. (See the subsection below for the proof regarding what I wrote.) --Niemti (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Regardless of what percentage of games have female protagonists, this is trivia -- not a defining characteristic suitable for an encyclopedia category. --Orlady (talk) 20:40, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is a defining characteristsic, exactly as much as "games set in 1997" or "games about drugs" or "games with 2.5D graphics" or whatever else in so many categories. Or actually it's 'definining' much more: because we don't have a (or any) discussions in the media saying "we have so few games set in 1997/about drugs/with 2.5 graphics". --Niemti (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Female heroes in video games might be a worthwhile subject for an article, but this category is uselessly broad and unhelpful. --erachima talk 08:45, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you elaborate? If you describe what would make Female heroes in video games an acceptable article, the same criteria can be adopted to make this category helpful and limited.Diego (talk) 09:10, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • No it couldn't. First and foremost because the article would be an article. It would be about the topic as a whole, not a list, and it would only bring in select illustrative examples of individual games as they were relevant to discussing the topic as a whole. In other words, Female heroes in video games would only be mentioning those video games whose use of female PCs had received coverage in reliable sources as historically significant to the medium, and it would be doing that in prose. A category can never accomplish the same thing. --erachima talk 13:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I understand then that you find "female PCs that had received coverage in reliable sources as historically significant to the medium" an acceptable criterion, to compile female characters in a way that provides an encyclopedic result. Would you find reasonable a list article that describes in prose (from RS) the reason why each item has been included in the list? Diego (talk) 15:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Eh, not really. Such a list might be marginally better than nothing, but given the state of existing lists such as List of female action heroes, it would be far from ideal. The closest thing to a list that I can see working out properly would be a History of female video game protagonists, which would naturally suggest a list-like organization, but that would likely have SYNTH issues in practice. The bottom line is that this is absolutely the place for an article, not a category and not a list. --erachima talk 15:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, we have that article here, but it's woefully inadequate to provide an adequate coverage of the variety and volume of female characters throughout the whole history of video games. Before a more complete collection of history articles can be written for the various existing periods and genres, we need a way to gather information and references about the characters that would belong in it; but that won't happen if such lists are deleted every time someone tries to compile and classify them. As Wikipedia is a work in progress, slowly growing bit by bit, you have to allow for the imperfect intermediate states if you want the finished product to be evolved from a collection of the small community contributions. Diego (talk) 16:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not "broad", it's actually very narrow (see my other comments, how it's not about random playable characters or sidekicks or whatever, only protagonists, just as the name clearly says). Btw, we had an article like that, it was deleted in favour of a category (this category which is about all kind of female characters with separate Wikipedia articles, not just protagonists). And it's not about "heroes", protagonists can be antiheroes or villains (evil), like everyone in Grand Theft Auto (ultraviolent criminals) or the Postal Dude (a psychopathic mass murderer of everyone and everything in his path). --Niemti (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your apparent decision to personally spam every single voter in this discussion telling them that they're using "protagonist" wrong is not actually doing your side of the argument any favors. And, no, such an article would never be deleted in favor of a category. --erachima talk 13:43, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Its not "spamming', its informing you were misinformed (not least, by the nominator). And yes, it was deleted. (But it was a crap article.) Also AFAIR another similar article turned into a category was the list of sidekick characters or soemthing like that (also a crap article). Oh, and this List of female action heroes of yours is a crap article too. --Niemti (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per John Pack Lambert. Sergecross73 msg me 00:36, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert has already relaized his conderns were invalid, and the term "protagonist" is actually about protagonists (see below, I tried adding this to a game that allows people to play female characters, and was reverted on the grounds that "it is a plotless fighting game, there are no protaganists".), thus your "per' is also invalid. --Niemti (talk) 06:34, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, I see the part where he said that, and I see you badgering him about it, but I didn't see him actually agreeing with you. And he hasn't changed his !vote yet either... Sergecross73 msg me 14:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are sources to assert that some gender gap could exist in the video games. Therefore, a category "Video games featuring female protagonists" has been created. And now, we have the problem of how to categorize "drama board wikipedia" with respect to this criterion. It seems that including "drama board wikipedia" into the "with female protagonists" category hurts heavily the feelings of some characters who are featuring here. May be this could be alleviated by the creation of another category, something like "Video games featuring few female protagonists" that, indeed, would be more adapted to "drama board wikipedia". Pldx1 (talk) 08:26, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either keep per Niemti and extended discussion below, split per Diego, or rename and change scope per Thibbs waaaay below. I think it's a reasonable category to have, and the nomination rationale is pretty ridiculous. Ansh666 09:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Rename. This is clearly a topic of interest, as evidenced by the list of media articles given by Niemti below. It is arguably a more notable characteristic than which year the video game was released in, which no one would challenge is appropriate for a category. It might benefit from being renamed or having more clear criteria for inclusion though. Kaldari (talk) 17:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am not a video game player (which leads to the possibility that I am misinformed) yet even I know that featured female protagonists are rare. Is it possible some are missing the word featured, and think the category is game with any females included? That wouldn't be much of a category. There might be some concern about defining which characters are featured, and which are merely background or incidental, but I'll leave that detail to others. It might be nice to live in a society where this distinction would be considered trivial, but we don't and our task is to describing the world we live in, not the world we wish to live in. --SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:08, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After posting, I read Protagonist, and realized the net is slightly narrower than i had envisioned. Multiple protagonists can exist, but it is not the case that all the major character are protagonists. However, that strengthens my support (although shifts the emphasis from "featured" to "protagonists").--SPhilbrick(Talk) 19:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The discussion below and above is convincing. However, I have an additional argument. The purpose of category is not proving or disproving anything, but merely a convenience of navigation. If at least a few people who do a lot of work in the area (as for example, Niemti does) find a category very useful for their work, such cats should be kept even only for their convenience. But chances are, if this is something convenient for them, this will be also convenient for others who actually work in the subject area. My very best wishes (talk) 19:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent point.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 20:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No it isn't. If the category is meant to help editors it's either hidden or --more appropriately for this case-- on the talkpage. What MVBW is suggesting is that this function as some sort of "Women In Gaming taskforce" tag, and that's an abuse of mainspace categories. --erachima talk 20:39, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the cat is solely for the use of editors, as opposed to readers, I would agree. It isn't. That editors find it useful is a plus, but as a non-hidden cat, its primary purpose is navigation. If I had any interest in video games, I could imagine being interested in which ones had female protagonists.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 23:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Misinformation in the nomination

The outlanish false claim: Hi. Almost all video games have female protagonists. In fact, the only video game without a female protagonist that I know of is Company of Heroes. We need a category called "Video games not featuring a female protagonist".

Now, the reality - see, for example:

And so on.

The current list (about 850 titles with articles on Wikipedia - out many thousands game articles) is pretty much definitive and there's not much more. I used the lists compiled by others as well as my own knowledge. Also this:

And no, I don't agree with the panic articles claiming it somehow a huge problem or something. Maybe in the way of "first world problems", and anyone who can play only as a person/creature of their own gender is pretty sexist themselves in my opinion. But, the point is these games are rare (and also lots of people are now suddenly interested in them). --Niemti (talk) 16:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I tried adding this to a game that allows people to play female characters, and was reverted on the grounds that "it is a plotless fighting game, there are no protaganists". Thus, I do not buy the claim that we can compare the size of this category to the total number of video game articles we have and tell anything. The fact that it is in parent categories for articles on characters, not articles on games, gives me the idea this is not a well thought out plan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just random playable characters are not protagonists. And it should be in some kind of "video games by" (there are so many of these cats), but I neither created or categorized the category - I just used it, a lot (I sepnt so many hours filling up this category). Oh, and I guess this experience of yours has already invalidated your original concern (The definition of this concept is not tight enough to really be useful. Video games so often have multiple protagonists that the fact that a game with 20 possible protagonists has 1 that fits this definition is not workable.), so you can overturn your vote. Oh and female characters are protagonists in some fighting games but only when they're actually protagonists (in Mortal Kombat 2 the protagonist is Liu Kang and he's male, but in Dead or Alive 5 it's Kasumi and she's female, and some games have just no protagonists at all). --Niemti (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Niemti fails to understand the purpose of categories or the process of how WP decides whether they are kept or not. Niemti claims on my talk page that notability has nothing to do with categorizetion, ergo the mere (i.e., trivial) intersection of two concepts, even if the notability of the intersection is unestablished (because in Niemti's view it's irrelevant), is a basis to keep a category. Niemti is just plain wrong, but does provide an object lesson why we don't have Category:Beekeeping footballers just because we have Category:Beekeepers and Category:Footballers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:42, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course it has nothing with WP:Notability, it's just categorization, not influencing the article's notability in any way whatsoever. As for the notability of the subject (female protagonists) - lots of media are discussing it, probably more than any non-genre, non-platfform, non-release game-categorization category subject on Wikipedia. Here are all the categories under the parent category (hundreds of them, often with sub-categories of sub-categories, sometimes many levels deep): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_games And I think mass media outlets are not discussing "why we have so few beekeeping footballers, what we can do to get more of them"? --Niemti (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Hello, guys. What I see in this section is chiefly caused by three elements: (a) disagreement over definition, (b) lack of due regard for our context and (c) sensational journalism. First, Metroid certainly counts as a game with female protagonist; but how about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3? Without these sources actually listing the video games they checked, and us seeing what they regard "game without female protagonist", the statement "many games lack female protagonist" constitutes a non-neutral point of view and is unacceptable in Wikipedia. Next, our context here is Wikipedia articles about video games, not all video games or video games released within a certain time period... and certainly not what is seen as "lame excuses". (WP:PEACOCK!)
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Apart from the fact that WP:NPOV applies to articles, not structural units of Wikipedia, there is nothing POV about an auto-generated list of articles. And, as I already explained, my nomination applies to article in Wikipedia, not the collective set of video games in existence. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then remind me what was your point, again? The statement "video games lack female characters" was not used in an article either, and thus content policies don't apply. You have to apply the same standards to both sides of this debate. Diego (talk) 06:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Codename Lisa: I know next to nothing about Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, which I didn't see in any list, and I didn't add (and no one did). If you think it has a female protagonist, or any else category it's not in currently, you can add cat-improve it yourself. Also, you still failed to provide any sources for your claim (Almost all video games have female protagonists. ), which I say was blatantly false (and provided sources to prove it).--Niemti (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. That was just an example that served a purpose. If you nitpick on examples, we can't possibly have a constructive discussion, regardless of how hard we try. As for the source, you yourself answered it below in response to Obiwankenobi. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:28, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. Your paraphrasing, I am afraid, is quite the opposite of what I intended. CoD:MW3 has two female character: A non-playable Alena Vorshevsky, a VIP, and an A-10 pilot. That said I mentioned this game because it at the other end of the definition spectrum: If we go with User:Masem's definition below, this game, and even games like Final Fantasy VII, lack a female protagonist. But by my definition, even CoD:MW3 has female protagonists. Studying User:Thibbs's comment below helps better understand my comment. That said, I don't think a mere difference in opinion of the definition warrants you personally attacking yourself on my behalf. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:15, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it was still a really stupid and nonsensical strawman argument, and continuous refusal to read the definition of the term "protagonist". Also FFVII has a female co-protagonist alright, actually two pretty well known ones, their names are Tifa Lockhart. ([2][3][4][5] etc.) and maybe especially Aeris Gainsborough ("two lead female characters, Aeris and Tifa" - Game Writing: Narrative Skills for Videogames, p.117) - initially, Aeris "was supposed to be the sole female lead, and villain Sephiroth was supposed to be her first love, not Zack,"[6] but in the end we got the two female leads. Additionally, there is also a female sidekick, named Yuffie Kisaragi (in video game vocabluary we don't really use the term deuteragonist, like we widely use "protagonist" and sometimes "antagonist", but she fits the role pretty well). --Niemti (talk) 10:37, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, Ansh. Did you say "conductive to discussion"? Which discussion? All I am seeing here are personal attacks, threats, allegations of strawman and bludgeoning the process. Niemti and I both worked on Final Fantasy VII articles. We both know how (un)true his statements in the last thread are. I have already elaborated why "I respectfully disagree"; if you are seeking witty impoliteness, I am afraid I must disappoint you.
Essentially, there is no reason for me to sweat it. While people like you come here and vote "Keep" with a very narrow definition of the word "protagonist", the category is growing in size by the hour, defying said definitions. So, I just unwatch this page and mark this category on my calendar to renominate in one year, when the issue of redundancy is so manifest that no one bothers to mention pro-feminism ideals. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 07:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment If there are RS that make lists of games that have female protagonists and calculate how many games have female protagonists, etc, then perhaps listifying would be reasonable. But I'm not sure if such thing is defining - in other words, when someone describes one of the games in this category, do they lead with "Game X, which is unique b/c it has a female protagonist, was released this year" etc? There are also plenty of articles about games which do/don't have minority protagonists, but I don't think we want to have Games with African-American protagonists or Games with Jewish protagonists either - so listfying might be our best bet esp if you want to preserve the work already done - and you can add additional context/references/etc to a list that you can't do with a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:15, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the right approach - not the percentage of protagonists but the defining part. There are games that are in the mind of all as being defined by their main characters (Metroid, Tomb Raider with Lara Croft, Mass Effect where choosing the gender of Commander Shepard affects the games' content), that are covered in the media over and over by their strong female protagonists.
The category should list those games where having a female main role has been noted as such, not games where an ensemble of undifferentiated characters contains one female, as that wouldn't count as a "female protagonist" as identified by RS - except for ensembles of characters where the females have been described by reliable sources as a defining characteristic of the game. Diego (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This category did at already, it all about protagonists (and not sidekicks, or just some playable characters in fighting games). As the name of the category itself says, it's just the protagonists and nothing else, and the games are all included only that way (at least in the games that I added, which is about 90% of the list I think). Go and start checking these articles and you'll see (many of these games are unknown/forgotten, but they exist, and they have articles here on Wikipedia). --Niemti (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there are no "RS that make lists of games" for any game categories in Wikipedia. Categories are based simply on observation by eitors (to quote myself: "games set in 1997" or "games about drugs" or "games with 2.5D graphics" or whatever else in so many categories - not a SINGLE category anywhere is based on any "RS that make lists of games", every time it's based on the game itself, its plot and gameplay). --Niemti (talk) 08:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what constitutes "minority" is pretty absurd in this case - white people are a "minority" in Japan, and the Japanese are a minority in France. And I can't even think about just any "Games with Jewish protagonists" or "Games with African-American protagonists" at all - almost all games set on Earth have protagonists that are either white or Asian (or mixed white-Asian, like Aya Brea or Jill Valentine), with some odd Native American or Middle Easterner (but not Jewish, more like Prince in Prince of Persia) sometimes (Resident Evil 5 has Sheva, but she's just a sidekick; Final Fantasy VII has Barret, but there's not even America in this universe; Metal Gear Solid has Hal Emmerich, but he's also just a sidekick). So your hypothetical strawman categories would have only Left 4 Dead 1&2 and Mortal Kombat: Special Forces for African-Americans and barely anything else (except film tie-in adaptations like with the Blade games) and practically nothing with Jewish protagonists (I guess the game industry hates Jews so much more than the feminists claim it hates women, if the latter's true). --Niemti (talk) 09:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment In fairness to those defending this category, we should note that the Category:Video games category has dozens of categories, by genre, by theme, etc for video games, so this one isn't exactly that far out after all, and if we throw the book at that one and apply the same standards, it would be a pretty brutal purge.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:39, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are also some very similar, like this (long-standing, no one objected for over 4 years now). --Niemti (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Generally for video games, when the word "protagonist" is used, it refers specifically to a playable character. In this manner, the number of games with female protagonists is rather small (though increasing). --MASEM (t) 21:35, 6 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And more precisely, the main playable character(s), not just any (and in very few cases, the non-playable character who is the real subject of the story). For example (the example which I used already), Sheva is optionally playable in RE5, but she's only Chris' sidekick (a notable one, but just a sidekick nevertheless) - not a protagonist. --Niemti (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I would agree too that games like Balder's Gate, where you gain a party of mixed genders and species which you control, that doesn't make the game one with a female protagonist. --MASEM (t) 14:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In BG the protagonist is the player's starting character and can be female (I myself played as a sorceress). In early Ultimas the Avatar can be female, but later it's a dude. Btw, if we can have another category for protagonists with a customizable gender if it's a problem (like being potentially misleading). --Niemti (talk) 21:22, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm pretty sure there is sufficient RS coverage of the topic of playable female heroes to justify a full article as erachima suggested above, but that's an argument to create an article, not an argument to delete a category. It sounds like the basis of the nomination is that the category will be over-crowded because all but a handful of games feature female protagonists, but as Masem points out, "protagonist" in this context usually means a playable character. I think there is value to a category of games like Metroid, Tomb Raider, Super Princess Peach, Ms. Pacman, Barbie, etc. etc. that have all been covered by the RSes specifically on the topic of their varying approaches to the inclusion of a playable female main character. I think it might help to more clearly define the category - perhaps by changing the word "protagonist" to "playable main character" or "playable hero character" or something that would more clearly indicate that we're talking about games centrally starring playble female characters, and not just any game that includes a female. -Thibbs (talk) 03:01, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In extremely few cases (but they do exist), the protagonist is actually not a playable character. In more cases, the protagonist is also not a "hero" (but antihero or villain, there's quite a lot of games like that, especially crime games). "Protagonist" is what it is - a protagonist, so obviously (and yes, there are few female prostagonists, of course). But thanks for a voice of reason. --Niemti (talk) 06:57, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it should be left as "protagonist", but I'd add that if Ms. Pacman counts as a protagonist, then that's a pretty broad definition. I don't think it could even get any broader. She's less of a protagonist than the ability to choose your gender in Pokemon since at least Pokemon has a story. I see the Mass Effect series are included. And they do have a bit more gender-specific plots, but where do we draw the line? Pokemon changes all the pronouns to match your gender. Is that not sufficient? Is that any less sufficient than putting a bow on Pacman, a game devoid of any plot? --Odie5533 (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, it's uncommon to find a good RS article on the history of female video game protagonists that fails to mention Ms. Pac-Man (along with the fact that she's not Miss or Mrs. Pac-Man). This kind of highlights the fact that female protagonists have historically been very rare. Are there any RSes that discuss the uncommon and progressive use of a female protagonist in Pokémon? Either way, the inclusion of one game or another isn't the point here. It doesn't really matter if Ms. Pac-Man or Pokémon are included or not. We're discussing whether the category is justifiable at all. We can delve into the requisite degree of female protagonism and tweak it however we need at any time and adjust category membership later. -Thibbs (talk) 04:19, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Provinces of the People's Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Provinces of China. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:46, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nom

Category:Ansaldo aircraft

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: withdrawn. (WP:NACD) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article and category are Gio. Ansaldo & C. and Category:Gio. Ansaldo & C. respectively. Also Ansaldo is ambiguous. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:43, 2 October 2013 (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:Films set in Newark, New Jersey

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary level of category specificity, Category:Films set in New Jersey works just fine. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Trout slap and comment. Before nominating this category, you emptied it of the one category that was in it. I will also state that Films set in a city category aren't uncommon. Newark isn't a small city but how many films have been set there I don't know. Lean on Me I think was partially set there also....William 11:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
World War Z is probably an example of another key question. If a film is set in lots and lots of places, is it really set in any? I have to wonder if the setting of a film is defining to it past maybe 3 locations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
2012 the movie was set in many locations. China, California, Las Vegas, Paris, Wyoming, Japan, Washington D.C., India, Canada, Nepal and London. If it has a scene set in so and so, it was set there....William 18:03, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the general view. Otherwise Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman would be in Category:TV shows set in Kansas, because there are 2 episodes (out of about 80) that are primarily set in Kansas, plus a few more that are set in Kansas partly. The pilot episode has 3 significant scenes in Kansas for example. We would also put it in Category:Television shows set in Paris, based on 1 scene in 1 episode. The Kansas argument would probably work if we had an article on the episode, "The Green, Green Glow of Home" and "Tempus Fugitive", but it does not work for the TV show as a whole. The TV show is clearly belonging in our non-exitent category Category:Televisions shows set in the State of New Troy, since over 95% of the TV show happens there. 1 scene in a TV show or film is not enough to make something set there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not ridiculous to categorize movies based on where they're supposedly taking place, even when a movie has several such locations. And yes, there is an Israel scene. It's Newark > Ship in the open ocean > South Korea > Israel > Wales. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:38, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:North-West Frontier Province cricketers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article name Khyber Pakhtunkhwa cricket team (following rename of province). Jevansen (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Snow tubing areas in the United States

Nominator's rationale: That a ski resort (by which is generally meant a resort for skiing and other wintersports such as toboganning, snowboarding and snow tubing) is (or has ever been) used for snow tubing is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that resort. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_19#Category:Snow_tubing_areas_in_Canada. For info: I've checked a sample of the articles in these categories and all are under Category:Ski areas and resorts in the United States (or the article text made no mention of snow tubing in which case I've removed it from the category). DexDor (talk) 04:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with the nominator's analysis. --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yes, if one looks at category contents you see that these are alpine ski resorts/hills that (may) offer some snow tubing along with other winter sliding activities. It's not defining enough for this category. If indeed there are resorts or parks that are specifically for snow tubing then for now let's group them under a top level snow tubing category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pearce Robinson

Nominator's rationale: Okay, the Pearce Robinsonization of Wikipedia has gone far enough. The recreated bio article does seem to be notable now, based on expanded WP:RS, as discussed on the article talk page. The notion that we're now going to create a category for this chap is laughable. Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_October_2&oldid=576254757"