- Category:Video games set on fictional planets (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This CFD has caused a lot of oddities in video games, particularly the one on "fictional planets", which was upmerged into "video games set in outer space". While for some games like Ratchet & Clank, this obviously is fine, but this has placed other games like World of Warcraft and many other role-playing games (like Final Fantasy), as "video games set in outer space", which is obviously not true. While DRV is not meant to review the reasoning for the review, the discussion did not have a clear consensus (rough !vote count) and that the proposed solution has made more of a mess that needs to be cleaned up. Masem (t) 14:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking personally, I didn't see any problems with the original category. Saying something's set in a fictional world is different from saying something's set in outer space. As per the problems caused above. I think this is a case where the deletion should be undone. If anything, I'd say "Video games set in outer space" was the one more in need of a close eye. --ProtoDrake (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- At risk of scope creep, I'd probably be in favor of deleting "video games set in outer space" as well, but that would probably require a new CFD. You should definitely open one if you feel that way though. SnowFire (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn - per Masem and ProtoDrake. It was both a bad read of a consensus, and a problematic change conceptually. Sergecross73 msg me 15:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete as original nominator. The original nomination was to simply delete these categories, and the only !vote for upmerge was from ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ. I think the upmerge was a good call for "fictional islands" to "set on islands" but obviously led to some wacky side-effects for fictional planets. Of course, this is because that category was very loosely defined and including wildly different cases (a sci-fi video game set on Mars as well as some miscategorized fantasy video game settings with named planets have rather little to do with each other). Anyway, this category was sufficiently nonsensical that it shouldn't be restored due to the reasons described in the original CFD. SnowFire (talk) 16:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Assuming we want to keep these categories, there are better terms to use for games like World of Warcraft, such as "video games set in fantasy locations". That said, this problem also exists for other mediums, eg Category:Films set on fictional planets which is placing the Middle Earth works there too. Hence why I think this close wasn't a good solution to address the larger problem. --Masem (t) 19:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I (we?) absolutely don't want to keep these categories, though! Precisely because they're not good fits under any term, they're utterly trivial. As far as other mediums, one thing at a time - sweeping nominations of a zillion categories / articles at once tend to get rejected as a trainwreck, so a "Test case" single article/category set is very common. It's an impossible demand if some editors demand that everything be nominated and other editors demand that only a small slice be nominated - we gotta start somewhere. SnowFire (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Here's where I know DRV is not meant as XFD, but the original argument that these aren't defining categories for video games is just not true. There are some games where they are absolutely known for their locations, like GTA, BioShock, Warcraft, etc. So that initial rational was bad, IMO. It would have better to get consensus across all forms of media for these categories (maybe just starting with fictional planets) as that has a wider impact. --Masem (t) 03:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn as BADNAC, to no consensus. Not a terrible discussion, but nothing I would call sufficiently clear for a NAC to close. Jclemens (talk) 17:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to Relist as BAD Non-Admin Closure. Rather than closing it as No Consensus, since it wasn't previously Relisted, a Relist might establish rough consensus, or at least give an admin closer more confidence to say No Consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn to delete per SnowFire. I don't see consensus to upmerge in the original discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn (revert the close and relist). BADNAC (contentious and unclear) and WP:Supervote. New Wikipedians employing their logic in closing should !vote. Upmerge, alongside Keep and Delete were well argues, but each lacked sufficient agreement. A closer needs to close on the basis of what the participants are agreeing to. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I admit, as closer, I was wrong in this close, and it should be overturned (if it helps, I can mass revert my edits). ― Qwerfjkltalk 07:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- As the closer now agrees to overturn and delete, this discussion can be speedily closed and the action taken without further ado. Stifle (talk) 08:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
|