Category talk:Red vs. Blue

	Animation portal This category is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
	This category is supported by the Computer animation work group.
	This category is supported by the Machinima work group.

Video games

This category is within the scope of WikiProject Video games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Video gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Video gamesTemplate:WikiProject Video gamesvideo game articles

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks:

Summary of Video games WikiProject open tasks

AfDs

Merge discussions

Other discussions

No major discussions

Characters

Should the characters be listed in this category. Because Red vs. Blue characters is a sub- category, and all the characters are listed there. So do they need do be listed twice. Any thoughts???

peace-Three waysround 14:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

nevermind TKD took care of it-Three waysround 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should be and that subcategory should be purged. As I said on its discussion page:

"This category seems a bit superfluous when only nine pages get linked to it. Wouldn't it be easier to link those same nine pages to the Red vs Blue category instead and erase this one?"

Thus, is the subcategory required? Dac 08:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry; I didn't see the discussion there. My apologies. My main thought in originally creating the subcategory was to "factor out" the common traits:

... so that we didn't have to include them on each character's page, thereby uncluttering the category list there. So it's not a simple category tree, but more like a lattice. — TKD::Talk 12:27, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I can understand what you mean there, but nonetheless, a category that only has those nine pages and will only ever have those nine pages seems useless, especially when you consider that each of the pages has an infobox that directly links to the others anyway. Dac 12:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair point. If you wanted to go forward with a CFD, I wouldn't really strenuously object, but I still feel that this is a slightly "cleaner" organization than without the subcategory. — TKD::Talk 12:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't really see the need for those other categories you listed anyway. It seems like you exerted yourself trying to tidy what wasn't necessary. But, I will wait for input from other members of this Wikiproject before I progress with a CFD. Dac 12:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You underestimate the refactoring impulses of a software engineer. :) I do know about WP:OC, but I'm still not sure that it's a clear-cut case here. For what it's worth, now that I reflect on it, I think, what actually happened was that those three above categories were originally on the list article, and were copied to the category when it was created; it'd make more sense that they were in a central place. — TKD::Talk 13:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna have to go with TKD here. It just helps be a bit more tidy. and i do understand that it might be slightly pointless to have a category with 9 pages in it, i just think it's the lesser of two evils. Plus i've seen categories with about 9 or even less (maybe) pages in them. so anyway i'm gonna go with TKD. peace -Three waysround 01:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]