Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 16 October 18 >

October 17[edit]

Category:The Rutles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Rutles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Strange and exotic foods[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Strange and exotic foods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
  • Comment 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]
  • Rename As the creator of the category I see all your points and I agree that it is very difficult to define what is "strange" and "exotic". Any suggestions for a food category that lists those "unusual" foods? Maybe Category:Controversial food? Minatsu 06:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Controversial" foods would include things like genetically modified food as well as many common foods like beef and eggs whose production and processing methods have been the subject of controversy. List of delicacies originally started out as a list of "weird" foods, according to somebody's cultural biases, and attempts to fix it to be more NPOV have turned it into something akin to national dish; I'm not sure why we need both articles. Meanwhile, acquired taste seems to have become a dumping ground for a list of foods that various people think are strange. Anyway, I stand by my original assertion that any attempt to classify foods by weirdness is inherently POV and ethnocentric, and inappropriate for Wikipedia. Dr.frog 14:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly listify - If the intent and content is to to reify Western/US ideas of "normal food" then delete with haste. OTOH, if the intent and/or content is to capture non-food items occasionally eaten (cannibalism? dirt?) then listify. Being occasionally eaten is, by definition, not going to be a defining attribute of anything that is not usually considered human food; so it wouldn't be useful as a category, but it would certainly be useful as an article about human diet -- "extreme eating", if you will. However, I'd still suggest changing the title to not imply subjective bias. Umm. I don't have any good ideas for an article title, though, since "taboo" means something quite different than "rarely eaten". And the criteria would have to be non-culturally-specific, so one would assume, foods that crop up in multiple cultures, but rarely. (Just riffing on this subject: If people want to venture into the firestorm that is sure to result then maybe a second list of "culturally or regionally unique foods" would be okay to pick up culturally-specific foods, like haggis; perhaps it could discuss the role of regional grains and animal products, and taboos / dietary / preparation issues that make, say, some parts of animals less likely to be used than others. Surely there has to be some literature talking about why haggis isn't popular everywhere there are sheep?) -- lquilter 16:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Ambiguous, POV and varies by region of the world. Vegaswikian 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Phuture 12-inch singles[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was relisted on oct 23. Kbdank71 14:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Phuture 12-inch singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Upmerge into Category:Phuture songs, Category:Phuture albums, or both. -- Prove It (talk) 14:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Rio de Janeiro[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename all. Kbdank71 14:47, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 tc 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 tc 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Yea, most readers would assume that Rio is the city. Just like most readers will assume Georgia is a state. Vegaswikian 00:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Josh Kelley albums[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 14:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Josh Kelley albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Steam products[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Steam (content delivery) products. Kbdank71 14:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.
  1. It allows formatting of text, which can facilitate reading and navigation.
  2. It allows distinction between multiple products covered by a single article. (e.g. Peggle)
  3. It allows listing of Steam products with no Wikipedia article.
  4. It allows adding of additional information such as release date, publisher, etc.
  5. 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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Fictional characters by year[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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 - "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]
  • There is no way that we will be able to pick out a "date of becoming notable" for many, many works. One, there are multiple definitions of notability -- a character might be notable for being the first female action hero in a genre (publication date), influencing the development of a massively much-more-famous spin-off or homage (date of the latter's publication, or perhaps the latter's notability), or perhaps it was highly notable to a small subset of people on first publication and then became notable to another subset of people when it was picked up by another station or publisher or artist or whatever. We can assess and argue about the fuzzy concept of notability, but assign a date to it? Ha. --lquilter 19:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I said WP:NOTABLE, not notable. Published works are always WP:NOTABLE, so we would take the first date in such cases. Think of it as the date when the character would have started to merit a Wikipedia article: determining this is no more problematic than any other WP notability issue. —Blotwell 03:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, we'll just have to disagree on this. Determining a date for WP:NOTABLE notability is hard. It is not always the publication date, as I tried to point out in my earlier comment. Characters may be rediscovered or achieve retroactive notability based on their actions in later works, etc. Any ambiguity is going to result in "mini-trials" and distraction. At any rate, I don't see a need to figure it out, because categorizing by date a character became notable is not helpful. It's not a defining characteristic of that character that demands a category. --lquilter 16:28, 22 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]
  • Delete...I'm not usually in favour of deleting, but this is definitely a case of overcategorisation. What next "Characters who smoke", "Characters who read comic books" etc. The only use I can see for this sort of category is in a long running TV show or comic book series, but for a tv series for example that lasted a couple of years it seems redundant. Douglasnicol 18:28, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussion that this is not a helpful categorization of characters. --lquilter 19:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I believe my previous point is addressed in certain Soap Operas, for example Eastenders who have a page specifically with more minor or shorter lasting characters introduced in particular years, though it is usually one page with a summary of the characters and their role in the series. This sort of category is not exactly needed in my opinion. Douglasnicol 14:05, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Mauricie Politicians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was relisted on oct 23. Kbdank71 14:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mauricie Politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Washington Metro[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 14:41, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Graphics software companies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Graphics software companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Business software companies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 14:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Business software companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_October_17&oldid=1140157573"