Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 29

< March 28	March 30 >

March 29

Category:Security exploits

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename per nom Erik9 (talk) 01:53, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Security exploits to Category:Computer security exploits

Propose renaming Category:Security software to Category:Computer security software

Propose renaming Category:Security software companies to Category:Computer security software companies

Nominator's rationale: Security is a broad subject area, of interest to many Wikipedia users. These categories would appear to be of interest to those users. However those categories are not for the broad area of security, but rather for the specific area of computer security. This renaming is consistent with existing categories: Category:Computer security, Category:Computer security models, Category:Computer network security, Category:Computer security organizations, Category:People associated with computer security, and Category:Computer security procedures. 69.106.242.20 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:55, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs that failed to chart

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete putting the discussion and category out of its misery, only redirects and creator CSD U1. Salix (talk): 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm having a hard time understanding why we might need this category. If a song fails to chart on any chart, then are we even going to have a WP article about it? Probably not, is my guess (though I know very little about the topic). At this stage, the category is populated, but only by redirects. Even if we could populate it, since we generally don't have categories for popularity charts (lists have been preferred), I don't think we need a category that categorizes songs for an achievement that the songs did not achieve. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obviously non-notable classification. Most songs fail to reach a chart; even a notable song might not. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I'm having a really hard time trying to formulate a good rationale for any category of this general sort. For instance, would we want to have categories for athletes (or horses) who failed to win races? I can't imagine that. And if memory serves, we deleted a category for failed political candidates a couple of months back, on similar grounds. So unless there's some singularly important factor that we're missing here, I just don't see a future for this category. I'm afraid it's gonna have to be added to the roster of Category:Failed categories. Oh, I see... I guess that one washed out too. Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw in the edit history that the category's creator said the following in his edit summary: "This one may not be necessary, but i still think that it sounds good." So he probably won't be terribly surprised to learn of this CFD. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And no i won't. I knew that it wouldn't be necessary in the first place, but i just wanted to present a good idea for a category, which now i know that it wasn't such a good idea. So go ahead and delete it if it's necessary. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Nothing wrong with trying things - some times it just doesn't work out. Live and learn, right? Cgingold (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quickly. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are many songs that didn't chart, but it isn't clear that their non-charting defines them or that anyone would want to navigate through this common characteristic. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I don't see how this category aids navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't this be renamed Category:Songs that declined to defend their right to chart? no, let's just delete. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete from a great height. We don't categorise by the absence of a characteristic, because if we started down that path we would have articles in squillions of negative categories. "People who have not been convicted of a crime", "parliamentarians who dis not hold government office", "athletes who did not compete at the Olympics", "foods not eaten in Rwanda" and so on. Aaaargh! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Given that the basic consideration for a song's notability is charting, the few notable ones that did not chart but are notable anyway are worth pointing out,at least as a possible maintenance category. The page should be defined to apply to only recorded music of the sort hat would be found on charts. DGG (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not charting is not a defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent. There are hardly any singles that didn't chart but are still worthy of an article. This category doesn't even contain articles, just redirects. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on. - I just added an article that wasn't a redirect on there. It was Mark Chesnutt's cover of "Heard It In A Love Song". His version failed to chart. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
- But that article is not about the non-charting version- it's primarily about the original version, which charted at number 14. The entire article is also unlikely to have sufficient sources for verification, and should most likely be a redirect to the album the original version was from. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not useful. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very useless category just redirects and the only article listed charted by a different singer. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 00:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, since you guys are clearly going to delete it anyway, I thought that it might as well be me who has it deleted. So there you go. I have nominated it for speedy deletion. Ryanbstevens (talk) 16:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs produced by Maestro (producer)

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Contains just one item, therefore a bit pointless! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't seem to have a lot of songs produced. Precedent with "produced by" categories is that the producer needs multiple solo productions to qualify. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Canadian MPs who have crossed the floor

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. There are cases, per CLN, where a category and list can co-exist, but even CLN does not mandate that they must. In this situation, the list is much more comprehensive. It gives you the MP, when they crossed the floor, under what circumstances, from party and to party. The category, on the other hand, simply gives the names, and not even all of them (categories obviously only contain articles that exist; this category doesn't even hold every article in the list). Kbdank71 13:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is pretty much a textbook example of the kind of thing that should be handled by a list rather than a category; note that List of Canadian politicians who have crossed the floor already exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the recent comparable UK category was kept, no? Ask Bhg. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you thinking of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 1#Category:Former_Labour_Party_politicians_.28UK.29? it was closed as upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Party changes are a strong defining characteristic. The argument that this is somehow better handled as a list is in clear conflict with WP:CLN, the relevant guideline in the matter, which strongly advocates for the synergistic co-existence of categories AND lists. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN does not require that categories and lists always co-exist; in fact, it explicitly states that there are times when it is more appropriate to have only a list. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLN states that co-existence is the preferred situation. Will you bother to offer a reason as to why the category must be deleted given that a list exists, despite WP:CLN? Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it does not say any such thing. It states that in some cases it's the preferred solution, but not all, and this is a perfect example of why the "not" comes in: a category doesn't provide the annotation that is necessary for such a grouping to actually be useful at all — namely what political parties a person crossed from and to, and why. A list can provide that, while a category can't, and as BrownHairedGirl notes below, there are many different variations on what crossing the floor actually entails — so without additional context beyond just their names, a grouping of people who happened to take this particular action is useless. As such, the category is an WP:OCAT violation. And again, WP:CLN does not say that a category is always required to coexist for every grouping of topics that can possibly be formulated into a list — CFD has a very thorough and well-reasoned set of criteria for determining which cases should be organized by a list-category pair and which ones should be organized only by a list, and this one falls into the latter set. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alansohn. Categories can't contain redlinks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why would "categories can't contain redlinks" be a rationale for keeping the category? Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Useful and a defining feature.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - amounts to a "former Foos" category, capturing members of one party who used to belong to a different party. We generally don't categorize on current vs former distinctions. "Crossed the floor" is not a term that most of the world would understand. WP:CLN does not in any way mandate any category. Yes, it advises that lists and categories can work synergistically but it also recognizes that there are instances when one is clearly superior to another. I'm at a loss as to how a category's being unable to contain redlinks is an argument in favor of the category as opposed to a list, since redlinks in a list of party-switching politicians would serve to illuminate politicians who are missing articles, something a category can't do. A list would also allow for sorting by date, old party, new party, whereas a category can only be an alphabetical list. Otto4711 (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While you are absolutely correct that "a category can only be an alphabetical list", all you've provided is an excellent explanation for elimination of the entire category system, as no category can ever be any more than that, even ones you like. Can you offer any justification for why the category and list should not exist synergistically as recommended by WP:CLN? Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - This appeal to WP:ALLORNOTHING is so tiresome. Otto4711 (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- For those that don't understand the term, there is an article on Crossing the floor. Would a name change satisfy that concern? Are redlinks a red herring? :)--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 18:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's been nobody in this discussion so far who doesn't understand what the term means. The question is about whether we need a category for it or not. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto4711 wrote above that it "is not a term that most of the world would understand" in his comments supporting deletion.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a rather big difference between theorizing that most of the world would not understand a term and the term actually being not understood by an actual participant in this discussion. But I digress. Bearcat (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is already an excellent list on this subject, and per my comments at a related CFD, this sort of category creates lots of definitional problems. Does it include MPS who left heir party and sat as independents? Those who had the whip withdrawn? Those who switched parties after leaving Parliament? What about those who formed a breakaway group and rejoined later? There are just too many subtleties in this concept to make a useful category, and lists are much better for this sort of fuzzy topic, because a list allows for an explanation of the nuances of an individual situation to be explained. Categories don't allow that fuzziness to be expressed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:37, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The list has several advantages over the category. I don't think fuzziness is one of them. Someone is either on the list or not. Regardless, the advantages of lists are not reasons to delete a category.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The category is a binary switch: an article is either included or not, but there is no scope for any discussion of the merits of inclusion. The list, however, can include marginal cases and explain why they are marginal, and that's what I mean by fuzziness. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete switching parties, allegiances, positions, etc. is commonplace everywhere but North Korea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, especially per Bearcat and BHG. The list is better designed to capture the subtleties involved, since this "event" is far from a generic one-size-fits-all occurrence. To categorize Lucien Bouchard and Bud Olson together and thereby imply that their situations in this respect are even remotely similar should be ridiculous to anyone who is familiar with Canadian politics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bouchard and Olson are on the the same List of Canadian politicians who have crossed the floor because that is a defining characteristic they have in common. The list is better able to explain the subtleties of their actions, but that is not a reason to delete the category.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 17:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure it is. Especially if one questions that it is defining for many of those included. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For there not to be both a category and a list, there needs to be some actual reason why one or the other is detrimental. There are very often definitional problems, and for any individual member of a class it can be dealt with at the article talk page. The textbook example of where only a category will serve is Category:Living people. DGG (talk) 19:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Living people is a maintenance category and has no logical bearing on this discussion. The reasons why a category is untenable have been laid out in detail already. Otto4711 (talk) 20:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Energy resource facilities in Chile

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Energy resource facilities in Chile to Category:Energy infrastructure in Chile

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Overlapping categories. Beagel (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Child actors that have a youtube channel

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A category just to show what "child actors" have YouTube accounts just seems unnecessary. Frehley ^Space ^Ace 17:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-defining. Lugnuts (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear lord - delete, obviously, non-defining in the extreme. Otto4711 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of my categories is currently nominated for deletion. But this category is better than the one that i created. This category ain't a really stupid idea. I just thought i'd ask since i'm here, and i saw such a category like this one. Well, do whatever you all think, but this ain't really a stupid category. If it is, then explain why it's stupid and unnecessary in the first place. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Well, for one thing, if you take a look at Category:YouTube, you'll notice that we don't even have an overall category for people who have YouTube channels, much less sub-cats for particular sub-groups. Basically, this is considered a relatively minor characteristic that doesn't reach the level of importance to warrant a category. Cgingold (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, non-defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Celebutantes

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete Erik9 (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The idea is subjective, making it a POV category. Aspects (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

del one of those categories which is better done as a list with careful referencing. --Salix (talk): 19:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is subjective and little known. Fences and windows (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep The history of the word in valid and is referenced...what's more, the article stands up to every one of the 5 pillars. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The thing is, categories are different from articles, and have somewhat different requirements. I can't say for sure whether this topic would stand up as an article, but as has already been said, it's simply too subjective to be a workable basis for a category. And note that a number of categories for "celebrities" have already been deleted for that very reason. Cgingold (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective, useless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per nominator and Salix's comments. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Pointless category about a term that overlaps other terms that are already categorized. Stands up to the 5 pillars? That may be a starting point to justify something, but by no means do the 5 pillars alone define what is notable and acceptable on Wikipedia. Some of the pillars, in fact, are completely irrelevant ("Wikipedia has a code of conduct": What, please tell me, does that have to do with this category??) Ward3001 (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Playlist

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisted. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_9#Category:Playlist.--Aervanath (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Playlist to Category:Playlist (album series) albums

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, as "Playlist" has multiple meanings. ~~"Playlist albums" or "Playlist (album series) albums" might also work,~~ to match similiar categories such as Category:20th Century Masters albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. I actually think the proposed title makes it clearer waht it about as many thing could fall under "playlist". --Salix (talk): 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After thinking about this a little more, I've decided that "Playlist (album series) albums" would be best, as it leaves no ambiguity and matches the "____ albums" precedent. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support. I will only support a move to "Category:Playlist (album series)", not to "Category:Playlist (album series) albums". — ^`CRAZY`(lN)`SANE^` 10:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't say as I see the need for this category. The albums are listed in the series article so are adequately linked to each other and the series, and the individual albums can certainly reside in the categories for the individual artists' albums along with the greatest hits albums categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. Categorizing by artist and by "greatest hits albums" generally seems reasonable, but we don't need to break greatest hits albums down into album series, especially when they are listed in the article about the series. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Suspended deck bridges

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Premature nomination Given the fact that there are three related renames for the lead articles involved in this nomination as listed below, as well as at least one AfD discussion, it is simply too early for this discussion. We need to wait until the issue with the article renaming is resolved before we consider what the correct category name is. Feel free to renominate as necessary once the rename issues are resolved. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete on the basis of WP:No original research.

Suspended deck bridge is not a bridge type. This can be verfied by searching google and google books for the full string. Most reference entries that come up refer to arch bridges with suspended decks. Some (like the first one in google books) refer to truss bridges with suspended decks.
There are no known compilations or lists of "suspended deck bridges". This is again verified through the google search. It can also be verified by reviewing text books that
Suspended-deck is a subtype of known bridge types. Arch bridges, truss bridges and suspension bridges can all have suspended decks. Each can also have the decks at some other level. Each of these types already has a category.
Each bridge attemped to be put into the Category:Suspended deck bridges should already be entered into the appropriate category.
The category was created by an editor who took text in a hatnote from the article on suspension bridges (fixed version here) to mean that this was a bridge type of its own.

Since no verifiable reference can be found that categorizes bridges as suspended deck, it is therefore original research to create a Wikipedia category. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is ¢Spender1983's nomination, the burden is on ¢Spender1983 to show (not merely assert) that the name the article is original research. --Una Smith (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The burden of WP:Verifiability is on the one that makes the edits. I have asked you to provide verification before taking this to the deletion process. WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research are very closely tied. If the work done by one editor is not verifiable, then you are splitting hairs whether you call it unverifiable or original research. The burden is on you to find a reliable source that categorizes bridges as Category:Suspended deck bridges. You should have done so before pulling this category out of thin air. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment. The newly created article titled Suspended deck bridge will also be nominated for deletion under WP:NOR, with the text to be moved back to its original location, the Suspension bridge article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see proposal to move Suspension bridge types to Suspension bridge, here. --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – there is also Category:Suspended-deck suspension bridges created recently by the same editor. Occuli (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as invalid bridge types. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please see this AfD too. Lugnuts (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with Category:Suspended-deck bridges. Both categories are populated. --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This new category needs to be deleted also. The editor keeps inventing catagories without finding any scholarly sources that categorize bridges in this manner. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The search term "suspended deck bridge" (with or without hyphen) returns 1560 hits on Google Web, 11 on Google Book, and 5 on Google Scholar. Checking just a few of those thousands of links, I find the term "suspended deck bridge" refers to Compression arch suspended-deck bridges, Truss bridges with suspended decks, Suspended-deck suspension bridges, and Self-anchored suspension bridges. This book illustrates a classification of bridges by deck type: suspended deck, mid deck, and under deck. --Una Smith (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - In the above comment, Una Smith states "I find … " By doing so, he aknowledges that his creation of this category is Original Reasearch, a direct violation of policy. He should be looking for a source that say this is a category of bridges. He should be looking for any scholarly source that writes about grouping bridges into this catagory. He should not be creating it on his own. The book he references discusses particular applications of the Lenticular truss and does not discuss or create a category of suspended-deck bridges across types. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:52, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - It is research, which Wikipedia requires, but not original research because anyone here can do it. Anyway, this category is just as valid as many others that are not classifications, including Category:Road bridges. --Una Smith (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No Original Research "includes any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position." So your statement that any editor of Wikipedia can create the same conclusion at which you have arrived is against WP:POLICY. You need to find a WP:SOURCE which categorizes bridges in this manner. The name suspended deck bridge is fallatious and the Category:Suspended deck bridges is just as fallatious.
        
        Chapter 18 of the 1916 book Bridge Engineering by John Alexander Low Waddell clearly shows that engineers classify bridges by the type of traffic they carry. Waddell states that (1) structures that carry railway traffic are "railway bridges" (Category:Railway bridges) and (2) structures that carry vehicular, herded animal and pedestrian traffic are "highway" bridges (Category:Road bridges). So, yes, there is a reliable source that says engineers have been classifying (categorizing) bridges in this manner for more than a century and therefore it is appropriate for Wikpedia to categorize bridges in the same manner. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Category is not a synonym of classification. 1560 hits on Google Web, 11 on Google Book, and 5 on Google Scholar establish that "suspended deck bridge" is a valid category of bridge. --Una Smith (talk) 01:44, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Are we now doing original research in the English language? Merriam–Webster has been publishing their research on definitions and synonyms for, oh, just a couple of years now. I believe thay would be considered a reliable source by anyone's standard on Wikipedia. They do say that categorize is a synonym of classify. Please see for yourself here. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Google hits, including google scholar hits, do not make a reference. The hits are simply an indication that the words appear together in a document on the web. AGAIN, the burden to WP:VERIFY is on the editor making the changes (in this case, creating the category). Review these "hits" and find one that supports your assertion. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I see no issues here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - move all articles into Category:suspension bridges, move Category:Self-anchored suspension bridges, Category:Simple suspension bridges, Category:Through arch bridges into Category:suspension bridges, delete Category:Suspension bridges by type. Most people think "suspension bridges" and "Suspended-deck suspension bridges" are synonymous and many editor will place articles in the former cat. There is a need to seperate off the other types of suspension bridges which don't have suspended decks. --Salix (talk): 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All articles already are in other categories; this is an orthogonal category. Category:Suspended deck bridges now has a paragraph that explains this. --Una Smith (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Readers who know about bridges may also want to note the changes made in the last few days to the article Suspension bridge types by the same editor. Hmains (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin. Please consider a speedy delete for Category:Suspended-deck suspension bridges also. In the "requested move" discussions going at Talk:Suspension_bridge_types#Requested_move and Talk:Suspended_deck_bridge#Requested_move and Talk:Suspended_deck_bridge#Requested_move_to_Suspension_bridge this user has also failed to provide WP:Verifiability that Suspended-deck suspension bridge is a valid name for bridges. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 13:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have unpopulated the category. Stating in my edit sumarries for the few bridges that were placed there that a WP:Reliable source is needed before changing them from suspension bridge to suspended-deck suspension bridge. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, another Note to closing admin. Please consider a speedy delete for Category:Suspended-deck bridges also. This is a "category redirect" to Category:Suspended deck bridges. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply from a possible closer. I have been watching this and have been considering a speedy close until the discussions here, here and here reach some type of conclusion. It makes little sense to me to make a decision here when there is a major battle over the correct name for the articles. So I'll go on record and say that unless someone can present a reason to keep this discussion open, I'll close it later today saying that the article name needs resolving before we discuss the category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:31, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.