Nominator's rationale:Delete - following category cleanup the remaining material is extensively interlinked and appropriately categorized. No need for the eponymous category. Otto471121:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is inherently POV; whose idea of "strange" or "exotic"? Foods that seem strange to people in some cultures may be perfectly normal to those accustomed to other cuisines. Dr.frog16:35, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with great sorrow). It's really a shame that we can't keep a category like this, as it's a subject that most everybody finds fascinating. But as Dr.frog says, it's inherently highly POV, and try as I might, I'm unable to conceive of an effective way of dealing with that problem. Cgingold18:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per nom as deeply subjective, and a classic case of systemic bias. Smalahove is neither exotic nor strange in Norway, but would probably be deeply exotic in Surrey. I never saw a watermelon until I was in my twenties, but in many parts of the world there are lots of them. Tomás Ó Criomhthain describes experiencing tea as a novelty, and until the clipper ships started transporting it in quantity, it would have been strange and exotic to most of the world's population. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed : Support disambiguating for state; Oppose disambiguating for city. The article for the city is Rio de Janeiro. Do we really need to disambiguate for categories that are for the city? I think most readers assume that it is the city being referenced when it there is no disambig. Snocrates03:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created the category because I was trying to follow this guideline. I haven't dealt with categories much and don't know if the category itself needs more specific categorization. Salamurai01:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Steam is a content distribution service as stated in its article. The categorization of products based on its distribution channel is an excessive use of the category function. A List article can better serve the purposes fulfilled by this category. In addition, it would allow extension of its functions.
It allows formatting of text, which can facilitate reading and navigation.
It allows distinction between multiple products covered by a single article. (e.g. Peggle)
It allows listing of Steam products with no Wikipedia article.
It allows adding of additional information such as release date, publisher, etc.
Delete - "Characters" is too vage and by year is overcategorization. It's hard to imagine anyone actually finding these cats useful. Gatoclass15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Were all of those subcats tagged manually, or is there a bot that can do it? The reason I'm asking is, I've come across some equally horrendous "by year" categories which I would love to nominate for deletion, but the thought of tagging them all manually has deterred me from dealing with it. Cgingold18:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I started using AWB to tag them, but Robert had already done most of them manually (Kudos due to him: too many people making large group noms don't bother tagging all the subcats, which is naughty). AWB does the job quite easily once you have figured out how to set it up (relatively easy for CFD if done on the same way as the nomination, harder for CfR/CfM and/or tagging done after the day when the nomination was made). I think that there are also some bots authorised for this sort of job; if you want some of them tagged, ask the friendly bot-drivers waiting at their taxi-rank. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Quite apart from the non-standard capitalization here, AFAIK it's not generally considered useful on Wikipedia to subclassify politicians by a region, particularly when that regional category ends up as a random jumble of mayors, provincial legislators, federal Members of Parliament and senators. A list would be one thing. A category, no. Delete. Bearcat06:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ended up being untenable to try to categorize companies by very generic 'types' of software such as 'Graphics software' Many companies cross categories of software and/or make software that defies categorization. Mostly moved to categorizing companies by country.. Cander000005:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ended up being untenable to try to categorize companies by very generic 'types' of software such as 'Business software' Many companies cross categories of software and/or make software that defies categorization. Mostly moved to categorizing companies by country. Cander000005:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
