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. MER-C 12:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Humble Bundle games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Humble_Bundles_category there is no need for this meaningless category. A lot of companies sell bundles of games. Listing that in a game article makes no sense at all. DreamFocus 22:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep The nomination reason is fair, but as I pointed out, at one point in the Humble Bundle past, when they were not regular events, being in a bundle was a thing of note for a game, since it would help boost sales and interest in the title. That aspect has clearly been diluted by the present approach to HB, in which there is a regular event with multiple different sales, though there is still the odd case of a title being recognized in secondary sources for being part of a bundle. I'd rather this be kept but not going to be losing sleep over its deletion. --MASEM (t) 22:43, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They'd bundle any game that the developers let them. I don't think it makes any game something of note. And if something is sold cheaper, then yeah, that can boost sales. News coverage is there in reliable sources whenever a classic game is sold cheap at Steam, GoG, or anywhere else. Do the games featured get sufficient coverages in the news announcement about the bundles, or just a brief mention of what all is in the bundle? DreamFocus 23:12, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As best I understand, there is still curation going on by the Humble group, you can't just walk up to them and ask to have your game included in a bundle. (On their store, different matter, but that should not be what this category covers). --MASEM (t) 23:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Look at what games they have. They toss in anything to their bundles just as filler, it not just games that were once popular years before. I looked and found this [1] A developer from Revenge of the Titans explained how they got on Humble Bubble: "I have spent a lot of time in that 10 years networking heavily with others in the industry and making friends (what you are doing here is not making you friends in the industry). We were in the Humble Bundle because over the many years I became friends with Jeffrey Rosen, and also, because we'd written IMHO a pretty neat game which we were debuting, which was quite a coup for the Bundle (all the other games were rather old)." So sometimes they get a newer game, a rather simple tower defense game in this case, if they know someone. DreamFocus 00:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: a non-defining characteristic by any stretch of the term. However it was once used, the category now includes games that are largely unaffected (so far as secondary sources care) by their inclusion in Humble Bundles. It's like tagging for Steam or another distribution service. – czar 23:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not. Humble Bundle is basically a limited time sale on a collection of video games. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:45, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Used to be defining when it was Indie Humble Bundles (but the category got renamed to this), covered in video game GNGs, each game with significant attention. Now it's basically another distribution method. The games no longer follow any strict criteria for inclusion (developer-specific bundles, mobile bundles, music, etc.). The list is still highly curated, but there are now so many games of different types, that it's not really defining. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 18:46, 31 July 2015 (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:Travel and holiday companies
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. MER-C 12:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Like Commons and other wikis. Horcrux92 (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Note: Category:Tourism says "Tourism is the act of travel for recreational, leisure or business purposes". DexDor(talk) 18:37, 31 July 2015 (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.
Gubernatorial elections in the United States by year
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. These each contain a single article, either for New York or Pennsylvania, which might as well be held in the US by year category. Merger to the other parent is not necessary as each member is already in a sub-cat of that one. This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29#1786_elections. – FayenaticLondon 07:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge in another wayCategory:United States gubernatorial elections in the 1770s, 1780s, etc by decade and populate. I presume each of the first 13 states had elections, at least from 1783. It just is that so far we only have articles on those for NY and PA, when the rest of the articles are created, there should be enough to merit having categories by decade. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alansohn: my proposal would not remove these articles from either of those hierarchies. One-article cats are not an aid to navigation. – FayenaticLondon 07:36, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the earliest year with as many as 4 articles is 1848. I susepoct that at least as late as the 1840s, it would do little harm to merge them into decades. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative to merge to decades. Navigation merely becomes complex when you have to scroll up and down through the years, while with decades you have an immediate overview of a reasonable number of related articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Questions to @Peterkingiron:@Marcocapelle: if merging to decades, should this stop at 1800s, in which case the 1810 category should be kept? How should they be named: Category:1770s gubernatorial elections in the United States? As there is no decades hierarchy within Category:Elections, should the new decades categories be kept within the year hierarchy (as is currently the case for century categories in Category:Elections by year)? – FayenaticLondon 09:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Elections for governors seem to come up in a variety of years. I suspect that a category would not be overburdened if we carried category merger forward at least until 1850, possibly later. I realise that with 50 states today, there must be a limit how far forward this is carried. My reaction to the US elections by year tree is that the articles should be upmerged. Looking at other things in the tree, there seem to be a lot of redirects for e.g. elections in 1792 and 1793 and some of these lead back to a general article on the election, not to one on a specific contest. However, elections usually take place in one year, though the campaign may take longer and the new members only take office in the following year. The tree needs a significant amount of tidying up. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Am doubtful that adding a few "by decade" categories as the first part of a series tree otherwise entirely "by year" for all American elections (by State plus HR, Senate, and most Gubernatorial) and without (unlike country and US state categories by year) intermediate decade and century categories will actually simplify navigation to articles. But if adopted, the few "by decade" categories should be parented directly on the parent Category:Gubernatorial elections in the United States by year, as otherwise someone looking at this parent category may not be aware that there are earlier gubernatorial elections in decade subcategories,. Hugo999 (talk) 22:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into decades pages. Too many to add to a category with no time specifications, and too few to have categories by years. Dimadick (talk) 13:22, 29 August 2015 (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:Wikipedians in Livermore, California
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Wikipedians in Livermore, California (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only user in category hasn't edited since 2013. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:09, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a nice town, but this isn't needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 4 August 2015 (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.