Category talk:Mass Effect (franchise)

RFD discussion: August–September 2022

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

Category:Mass Effect (franchise)

Only has two English entries, and none for other languages. Does not seem worthy of its own category. --Numberguy6 (talk) 01:04, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy keep. Topical categories are supposed to have a root category for containing every language subcategory whether there's one or ninety. Plenty of fiction-related topical categories only have an English subcategory in them at the moment: Category:Marvel Comics, Category:Doctor Who, Category:James Bond, Category:The Matrix. That's an invitation for editors working in other languages to expand our coverage, not an excuse to slash-and-burn the categorization system for no reason. (FWIW, I'm also planning to add more fandom slang for this franchise eventually.) WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not the number of categories, but the number of entries in each category that's the problem. Wikimedia categories are navigational devices. Given that the two entries already link to each other, what's the point of having a category that does the same thing? Having a category with only two entries in it is almost as pathetic as calling your landline from your cellphone so you have someone to talk to... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

RfD'ing a category as some kind of deletionist flex is a rather unconstructive use of time as well. There is no policy dictating how many entries a category must contain before it can exist. Categories are meant to help readers find relevant entries. It doesn't matter whether a category encompasses two entries at a given moment or two thousand. Categories are unobtrusive. They're tucked away at the bottom of an entry where most people won't notice them. But they're an extremely useful tool for those who rely upon them for navigating the site. This site is a permanent work-in-progress. Categories that are sparsely-populated now can grow in time. Given that this game franchise is noted for its dating sim elements, there's likely multiple ship names that could be attested. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It does serve the useful purpose of drawing attention to entries that don't seem to satisfy WT:FICTION. DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

In general, I don't think we should create "topic" categories when there's only a handful of entries to go in them in any language. It makes the category system less navigable/useful to have a bunch of single-entry or two-entry categories for every "topic" someone has theorized as discrete, which is limitless: like, what's to stop someone splitting the (useful, 43-strong) Category:en:Star Wars and treating each film as its own topic? Only the attitude of editors that it's better to only have categories for topics significant enough to have a decent number of entries, where it's easier to collect them in a category. When there's only one or two(!) entries, it's better to just crosslink them. In this case, the RFD motivated the subsequent addition of more entries, so I'm inclined to say eh, the category's probably OK now. But in general, my opinion is don't create topic categories until there are a decent number of topical entries (precisely how many might hard to pin down, but one or two is too low). - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep, it has been populated now (@Numberguy6). However, I agree that we shouldn't have topical categories if there's only 2 or so entries in it with no prospect of this number increasing. AFAIK, this has been de facto policy for some time now (the rule of thumb was said to be 10 entries IIRC) and there's also good reasons for it (some of which have been laid out above). — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

On the face of it the cites for some of these entries don't seem to meet WT:FICTION. DCDuring (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

For that matter, I doubt that some of the entries for the other fandom categories, eg, Category:en:Star Wars would meet WT:FICTION either. Are we that desperate? DCDuring (talk) 02:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Which entries don't pass WT:FICTION? The rule only forbids terms originating from fictional universes, and none of the entries in Category:en:Mass Effect (franchise) originate from the games themselves. Fandom slang is explicitly allowed. Binarystep (talk) 09:17, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that FemShep and BroShep, both proper nouns, meet the following:

"With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense"

I wonder whether any of the contributors who have wasted their time and ours on entries of this ever read this. DCDuring (talk) 17:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This comment is extremely telling. Wiktionary has no place for linguistic snobbery. Theknightwho (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Again, the policy only forbids terms from fictional universes. FemShep and BroShep are fan-created terms with no usage in the actual games. There's no rule saying we can't include terms referring to works of fiction. Binarystep (talk) 00:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Strong keep per WordyAndNerdy. Binarystep (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Keep - absolutely no reason to delete this if it contains terms that don't violate WT:FICTION. Theknightwho (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

RFD-kept, it's been populated to 10 entries now. The issue of WT:FICTION relates to the terms themselves, not the category, and would be dealt with at RFV (and already has been, in the case of a couple of these terms). This, that and the other (talk) 12:32, 17 September 2022 (UTC)