User talk:Road Wizard/Legend of Zelda CfD discussion

Currently on Wikipedia there exists a dual category structure for articles related to Legend of Zelda articles, one set beginning with Category:Legend of Zelda and the other with Category:The Legend of Zelda. Because having two category structures covering the exact same purpose is unsustainable I raised a CfD discussion on 3 June 2006. Unfortunately the points raised by editors were too varied and no clear consensus could be reached, so the discussion was relisted on 17 June 2006, which again appears to be heading to a decision of no consensus.

To try and resolve this situation, I have started this new discussion to see if we can reach a consensus through a different method. Instead of considering the situation as a whole, I will replicate below each of the proposed options and ask you to indicate your support for each. If after 5 days we appear to have reached a consensus for any of the proposals, we can then relist them at CfD.

I have listed below 7 proposals that seem to be mentioned in the previous discussions, but please feel free to add more if I have missed any. Thanks. Road Wizard 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have closed June 16 CFD discussion without taking any action. Please feel free to start a new CFD when necessary. Conscious 06:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now closed the Proposal 1 discussion and relisted it at CfD for formal approval. Of the remaining 10 proposals, only No. 7 has gained a consensus of support. However, as the new Proposal 11 is closely related to No. 7, I am leaving this discussion open for a few days to see if No. 11 gains any support or opposition. Please feel free to indicate your choice or alter any existing votes you have already made. I will reassess the position at about 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC). Road Wizard 21:27, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now closed proposals 2, 3, 6 and 9 as they have a clear consensus in opposition. I was going to close the remaining discussions, but No. 7 and No. 11 are too close together to make a decision between them (5 minus 1 votes and 4 votes respectively), so I am going to leave them open a few more days to see if a clearer consensus develops. I had briefly closed proposals 8 and 10, but as the discussion is still ongoing, and they are at a position of no consensus, I have reopened them. I will reassess the position on 9th July 2006 (UTC). If there has been no change in the situation by that time, I will be taking forward No. 11 to CfD. Road Wizard 01:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As No. 11 has gained some more support since my last comment, and I have received no objections, I have now taken proposal 11 to CfD. The relevant discussions can be found here and here. Given that the new category names were not clearly specified in the proposal, I have made an arbitrary choice on what to call them. If you can think of a better wording, please add your comments at CfD. Thank you. Road Wizard 21:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Count

To save time with having to repeatedly look up the number of pages in each category, I have provided a count below.

Main = 12

Characters = 14

Games = 27 (rough count due to some items appearing more than once in the sub-categories)

Places = 21

Villains = 22

Weapons = 7

This gives a current total of 103 pages (articles, templates, etc.), not counting the images listed in the media category. Road Wizard 21:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some are pages ;) See this Scepia

Proposal 1

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was to support the merge proposal. Proposal now relisted at CfD here and here. Road Wizard 21:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To start with the least contentious first, it has been proposed that all the sub-categories of Category:Legend of Zelda games and Category:The Legend of Zelda games be merged into the main games category. The sub-categories only have between 1 and 7 articles each.

Support. Road Wizard 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the small amount of games for a given system. Scepia 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Vossanova ^o< 13:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 132.205.45.148 00:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Ian Moody ^(talk) 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. No need for that much delineation. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:42, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 2

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was to oppose the merge proposal. Road Wizard 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To merge all sub-categories of Category:Legend of Zelda and Category:The Legend of Zelda into the main category, as the large number of sub-categories is unnecessary.

Oppose. The large amount of images in the media sub-category make this a little impractical. Road Wizard 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all categories and retain one under the title of "Legend of Zelda". There's no need for all these categories. Not concerned weather there's a "The" in the title or not. -Zero^Talk 16:31, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the subcategories are truly huge and putting them under a blanket category would make the main one clunky. If one is looking for every single game in the series, they will want to look at all the games together in one subcategory. (One can't find all the games quickly, as some have totally different names, like Zelda's Adventure. Seriuosly, if all the subcategories were merged, there would be pages upon pages and things would be hard to find. Scepia 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - see proposal 3 comment below. --Vossanova ^o< 13:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Ian Moody ^(talk) 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Subcategories, in this respect, are useful. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was to oppose the merge proposal. Road Wizard 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with proposal 2 above, but keep the media sub-category.

Comment. I have no strong feelings on this, but doing a rough count, I doubt that there are 100 articles in total, so 6 sets of sub-categories does seem a little excessive. Road Wizard 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, instead keep all/more than one of the subcategories. See Proposal 2. Scepia 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By saying "keep... more than one of the subcategories," are you indicating a willingness to reach a compromise between the positions of keeping all and deleting all? Are there any sub-cats that you definitely want to keep or any that you don't mind losing? If so, we can make a new proposal based on that and see if it gains a consensus. Road Wizard 21:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y'know, I guess I didn't properly look at the categories. I want them all to stay, but that may not happen so I want at least the media sub-cat to stay. Really, weapons and items don't belong in the main cat as they can all go nicely into their own subcat. There's essentially no reason to unneccessarily merge them as one would find the proper info much easier with rather extensive subdivision. And it's not like the cats are three or four pages each, the least is seven. Maybe merge villains and characters, and weapons and items with the main cat, but that is a rather last-resort thing. Scepia 22:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The subcategories are "truly huge"? Most of them are empty! --Vossanova ^o< 13:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The LoZ cat has been emptied mostly, while most are in TLoZ, and a few are in TLoZ series. If one takes a look at the media subcats, that one is huge! Scepia 21:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely, thus my support for keeping it. --Vossanova ^o< 00:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I must say though, there are plenty of pages in the subcats, not just in the media subcat. By supporting this propsal you support the deletion of useful subcats ;) Thanks. Scepia 01:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose — Ian Moody ^(talk) 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We should keep all subcategories. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:44, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 4

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was to oppose the rename proposal. Road Wizard 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the category and sub-categories with "The" in the title (i.e. retain Category:The Legend of Zelda)

Comment. I have no strong feelings on the name issue, so I will abstain for now. Road Wizard 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, see Proposal 7. Scepia 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, see proposal 7. --Vossanova ^o< 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose 132.205.45.148 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Ian Moody ^(talk) 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as per Proposal 7. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 5

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was no consensus. Defaulting to proposal 11 as most widely supported. Road Wizard 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Return to the category structure without "The" in the title (i.e. return to Category:Legend of Zelda)

Comment. I have no strong feelings on the name issue, so I will abstain for now. Road Wizard 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, see Proposal 7. Scepia 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, see proposal 7. --Vossanova ^o< 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the proviso that Proposal 1 is adopted, and that "characters" and "villains" are merged. 132.205.45.148 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Ian Moody ^(talk) 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The the is needed, and as per Proposal 7. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 6

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was to oppose the rename proposal. Road Wizard 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the main category as Category:The Legend of Zelda, but have all of the sub-category names without "The".

Comment. I have no strong feelings on the name issue, so I will abstain for now. Road Wizard 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, see Proposal 7. Scepia 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, see proposal 7. --Vossanova ^o< 13:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main category should also remove the word "The" 132.205.45.148 00:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Ian Moody ^(talk) 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The the is needed, and as per Proposal 7. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 7

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was to support the renaming proposal. However, due to proposal 11 gaining more support, I am closing this in favour of No. 11. Road Wizard 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retain the word "The" but also add the word "series" to each of the category names (i.e. change to Category:The Legend of Zelda series)

Comment. I have no strong feelings on the name issue, so I will abstain for now. Road Wizard 14:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support on the grounds that "The Legend of Zelda series" is the only truly correct way to write out the series name. Media is absolutely not "Legend of Zelda media" or "The Legend of Zelda media" but "The Legend of Zelda series media". Scepia 20:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support to avoid confusion that it's only for the first game in the series. --Vossanova ^o< 13:24, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Ian Moody ^(talk) 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, to avoid confusion with the first game of the series. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Support, per Proposal 11 (see below). The "The" is present in the names of all the games that have been released (to my knowledge) and "series" would denote that these categories/etc. refer to the series in general rather than to any specific game. --Axem Titanium 21:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ withdrawing support. See Proposal 11. Carcharoth 10:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC) Vote modified since original vote. See here for original vote. Carcharoth 10:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC) [reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 8

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was no consensus. Defaulting to proposal 11 as most widely supported. Road Wizard 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the word "The" but also add the word "series" to each of the category names (i.e. change to Category:Legend of Zelda series)

Support with the proviso that Proposal 1 is adopted, and that "characters" and "villains" are merged. 132.205.45.148 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I support Proposal 7. Scepia 02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — Ian Moody ^(talk) 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The the is needed. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 9

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was to oppose the merge proposal. Road Wizard 19:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the villains and characters categories, and use whatever naming convention is supported ("The"/no the, "series"/no series).

Support 132.205.45.148 00:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, they are very different - Link does not belong in the same subcat as ReDead. Scepia 02:46, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose — Ian Moody ^(talk) 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, but villains should be a subcategory of characters. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Great idea! That is the best solution in my opinion. Scepia 01:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not already a subcategory? That's silly. Sorry, but it is! :-) Carcharoth 13:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 10

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was no consensus. Road Wizard 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should the preferred course of action be to remove "The" from category names, The Legend of Zelda series should be moved to Legend of Zelda series and the same for articles such as The Legend of Zelda series characters.

Support — Ian Moody ^(talk) 11:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~This seems to duplicate Proposal 8 ;) Scepia 19:04, 1 July 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

~~I think the editor is proposing that the article linked to above should reflect the new title of the category if proposal 8 is successful. Road Wizard 19:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Ah, sorry, I didn't realize the articles weren't mentioned otherwise. Scepia 19:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as was said in the CfD, proper categories and articles have proper series titles. Quoting from the user:

"Keep the versions with "The". Proper series title includes the article. Voretus the Benevolent 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scepia (talk • contribs) .

Oppose. The the is needed. —Gordon P. Hemsley→✉ 00:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the naming conventions for category names are not as strict as for article names. In the article, the the is needed, but the category could legitimately be using the phrase "Legend of Zelda" as an adjective, thus avoiding the 'need' for a 'the'. Carcharoth 13:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 132.205.45.148 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Proposal 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of this debate was to support the renaming proposal. Category proposal now listed at CfD here and here. Individual editors should take forward the article renaming proposal if they wish to do so. Road Wizard 21:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the naming of the categories.

Have the main category as Category:The Legend of Zelda series. Have all subsequent subcategories, named in a style that avoids the awkward "The" at the beginning and is more readable, such as Category:Foo of The Legend of Zelda series, eg. Category:Characters in The Legend of Zelda series. In addition, the clumsy article names should also be renamed, eg. The Legend of Zelda series songs to Songs from The Legend of Zelda series; The Legend of Zelda series weapons and items to Weapons and items from The Legend of Zelda series; and so on.

Support as proposer. Carcharoth 13:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Even better than Proposal 7. --Axem Titanium 21:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Makes a lot more sense than all previous proposals. (and I read them all ;) ) Jjam189 16:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support with the proviso of "the" winning over no-the. My preference is no-the main category. 132.205.45.148 17:47, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sounds most professional. Seems the best of all proposals. Tryforceful 06:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.