Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 17

< October 16	October 18 >

October 17

Category:The Rutles

Category:The Rutles - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following category cleanup the remaining material is extensively interlinked and appropriately categorized. No need for the eponymous category. Otto4711 21:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 23:58, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strange and exotic foods

Category:Strange and exotic foods - Template:Lc1

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.frog 16:35, 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. Cgingold 18:28, 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]
Delete impossibly subjective per BHG - surprised that Haggis isn't in the cat, but perhaps the cat was created by someone familiar with Scottish cuisine. Carlossuarez46 00:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Americanized bias. Snocrates 03:04, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Who decides what is "strange" or "exotic?" --MatthewUND^(talk) 06:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Banned food or Category:Controversial food ? Many of the more exotic items would not be legal in most jurisdictions. The current categorisation is subjective, the ones that, ahem, I've tried I don't consider that exotic, anyway, they rank alongside staples such as Deep-fried Mars Bar and Rakfisk as just being a bit odd. Ephebi 09:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note We could conceivably have a category corresponding to the Taboo food and drink article, but folks might want to check out some of the past discussion on the talk page for that article. There's been disagreement about exactly what constitutes a food taboo -- most folks agree that religious prohibitions are covered, but legal prohibitions (due to health concerns re specified risk materials/endangered species protection/etc) have been somewhat controversial, and purely cultural taboos about eating pets or "disgusting" foods like insects even more so. If you'll pardon the pun, having such a category would open a whole can of worms about what should be in it. Dr.frog 14:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was initially going to vote "delete" but on looking at the actual foods, I couldn't help but agree that some of them do look pretty strange :) Maybe there's an alternative title that could be used instead of "strange and exotic"? Gatoclass 10:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an ethnocentric category. But it would be useful to create a more straightforward category for strange food (such as the yummy Lutefisk). I just have no idea what kind of criteria we can use... Tankred 00:54, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phuture 12-inch singles

Upmerge into Category:Phuture songs, Category:Phuture albums, or both. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rio de Janeiro

Propose renaming Category:Rio de Janeiro to Category:Rio de Janeiro (state)

Propose renaming Category:People from Rio de Janeiro to Category:People from Rio de Janeiro (state)

Propose renaming Category:Neighbourhoods in Rio de Janeiro to Category:Neighbourhoods in Rio de Janeiro (city)

Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Rio de Janeiro to Category:Mayors of Rio de Janeiro (city)

Propose renaming Category:Sport in Rio de Janeiro to Category:Sport in Rio de Janeiro (state)

Nominator's rationale: the state and th city is different. Matthew_hk t c 13:28, 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. Snocrates 03:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i assume the rationale behind Category:People from São Paulo (city) is applied on Rio de Janeiro. Matthew_hk t c 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Josh Kelley albums

Category:Josh Kelley albums - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per precedent. Esprit15d 12:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the well-established exception to the OCAT guideline, that small categories are acceptable as part of a wider established structure, in this instance Category:Albums by artist. Otto4711 13:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and speedy close as per precedent. Lugnuts 17:32, 17 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. Salamurai 01:55, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Steam products

Convert to article Category:Steam products to article List of Steam products

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.
The category is currently used like an article to list future games, this should be done in an article instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voidvector (talk • contribs) 10:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

--Voidvector 10:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename cat to Category:Steam (content delivery) products and remove/merge that text into the article. Lugnuts 11:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the proposed list name is ambiguous. 132.205.99.122 18:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply it is imply the result of adding "List of" in front of the current category name. --Voidvector 11:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters by year

Category:Fictional characters by year - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete all per this consensus where it was agreed that this is ambiguous (what exactly does "introduced" mean?) overcategorisation. Note: Category:Characters introduced in 1999 has since then been deleted, and then recreated. RobertG ♬ talk 08:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom and per previous consensus about the ambiguity of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Characters" is too vage and by year is overcategorization. It's hard to imagine anyone actually finding these cats useful. Gatoclass 15:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By all means Delete per all of the above. Cgingold 18:50, 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. Cgingold 18:50, 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]
If kept, rename to "Fictional characters introduced in XXXX." No opinion on deletion. Postdlf 23:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Rename per Postdlf's suggestion, consensus can change. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:15, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: consensus can change is true, but "consensus can change" is not a new argument in favour of changing any particular consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per the arguments presented in the this discussion, particularly that the ambiguity associated with the terms "characters" (which incarnation?) and "introduced" (in what manner?) makes this is a less-than-optimal basis for categorisation. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not move them to their respective parent cats, "XXXX introductions"? It'd be a shame to lose all of the data. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep because the reasons put forward for deletion don't make sense to me. The appropriate date would be the date of becoming WP:NOTABLE, usually by publication. If multiple incarnations are all notable yet similar enough to share a page, they're similar enough that it's reasonable to take the first such date. And given that some kind of categorization by chronology is useful, the reason for categorizing by year is that coarser categorization would leave unmanageably huge categories, so this is hardly WP:OVERCAT. I would support a rename to Category:Fictional characters introduced in XXXX. —Blotwell 05:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom and 1999 test case consensus. Timrollpickering 11:00, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Consensus can change, what reason is there to delete it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, consensus can change, but:
  1. Recreating a cat, as was done with the test case for this mass CfD, within 3 days of the delete close is considered bad form. Consensus generally isn't tested on the exact same cat in such a way for a few months, at the least. A "no consensus" result is generally left alone for a few weeks. (Not directed at Sesshomaru specifically, since he was not the one to recreate 1999, but it does cover one part of his plea.)
  2. The fact that consensus can change does not mean we hedge on the "safe" side. We find out what it is now and, if definitive (keep, delete, rename, merge, etc) act on it. If 3 month, 6 months, a year, or longer from now the consensus changes, we deal with it then.
  3. We are with in a month of a definitive "delete" with the test case, it is time to see if that applies across the board, or if some of its sib-cats are exceptions.
- - J Greb 23:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it seems to be a case of overcategorization and the criteria are not completely clear. Tankred 00:56, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mauricie Politicians

Template:Lc1

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. Bearcat 06:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington Metro

Propose renaming Category:Washington Metro to Category:Metrorail (Washington, D.C.)

Nominator's rationale: Rename, to be consistent with the renaming of Washington Metro to Metrorail (Washington, D.C.). –Dream out loud (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for consistency with renamed main article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:16, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Works for me. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:53, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - note there are a number of subcats that should be added to the nom. Otto4711 21:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
umm does it matter that no no one calls it metrorail? and thus people won't be looking for it?--Buridan 23:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Graphics software companies

Category:Graphics software companies - Template:Lc1

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.. Cander0000 05:34, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Business software companies

Category:Business software companies - Template:Lc1

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. Cander0000 05:32, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 00:02, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]