Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 20 November 22 >

November 21[edit]

Category:Nightwish box-sets[edit]

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 Category:Nightwish box-sets to Category:Nightwish albums. --Xdamrtalk 14:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Nightwish box-sets to Category:Nightwish albums
Nominator's rationale: We don't seem to categorize albums by combinations of both artist and format. For example, we eliminated all "(artist) EPs" categories a year ago.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:23, 21 November 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:Monsters in Castlevania[edit]

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. --Xdamrtalk 14:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Monsters in Castlevania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This cat has popped up on over 70 pages, and for almost all of those 70 their presence in the Castlevania videogames is around 1% or less of their notability. This could be very easily listified. Note that the article Vampire, which gets 10,000+ hits daily, has only six categories, and this is one of them. MatthewVanitas (talk) 17:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an indiscriminate list of creatures. Mind you, fictive creatures. The fictive aspect is not in the category name, which is an additional reason for deletion. Debresser (talk) 11:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Not Delete as I feel this list helps with exposing people to what kind of fictitious and mythological folklore are present in the Castlevania games which they might not be aware about otherwise. First, it was proposed that a list be made, and truth be told, there WAS a list that was made around 2-3 years ago, but has since been deleted for other reasons. Second, this list is not only related to fictitious monsters (which I have yet to add), but also monsters, creatures, and a few deities of myth, folklore, and legend which some may dispute are not fictitious at all (which are currently what reside within the category). I believe this nomination does not take into consideration the wide variety of monsters that appear in these games, and how the game series can help educate people of what monsters, demons, Gods, and Goddesses exist out there. Third, this list IS discriminate. It only includes monsters that have appeared in the game and does not include all monsters. I already founded the list for that two years ago with the List of monsters. Fourth, saying that the Castlevania video games is only about 1% or less of their notability may be true for SOME monsters. However, some of the more relatively unknown monsters, such as the Chonchon is only know through the Castlevania video games. In which case, their notability is significantly more than 1% due to the games. Finally, I do not see why the minimal list of categories is a factor. I believe it's more important for Vampire to be listed in MORE categories so that all that it relates to can be easily found and referenced. Many common articles have multiple categories, such as United States which is part of no less than 17 categories, thus heightening its relevance. I believe more categories should be added to vampires as I feel that would increase its number of hits significantly. In conclusion, if you feel this category to be too trivial, then delete if you must. But if so, do not complain when I make the List of Castlevania Monsters in the future. OtakuMan (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Why Castlevania? Why not any of the hundreds of other video game titles WP has deemed notable? This categorization is unsustainable for the same reason we decided to eliminate "actors by performance" categories.- choster 18:18, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not Castlevania? This game series has been around since 1986, and is one of the first games to pay tribute to the classic monsters of Horror, myth, and folklore. Sure there are other notable games out there that WP recognizes, but only the Shin Megami Tensei series can possibly compare to Castlevania in terms of monsters and creatures pulled from real myths, legends, fiction, and folklore. Bear in mind that I'm looking at monsters that are NOT exclusive to the Castlevania series. If you take the Super Mario Bros. games, for example, all the enemies and friendly creatures in that game were created specifically for those games. Many games often do. Castlevania on the other hand takes these monsters that we know from outside of video games, and uses them in interesting and imaginative ways. I think that's worth recognizing. And frankly, I think certain monsters deserve the added categories to show what games they've been part of so people can see the different interpretations of each monster. For the record, I also mentioned that I was going to work on making a List of Monsters for Castlevania, and I've already gone ahead and gotten it started at List of Castlevania Monsters and Bosses which I think is turning out quite well. I've been making lots of references to the original Castlevania literature in the form of game manuals and designs to back up my naming conventions. It's not easy since some of it requires translating Japanese kanji, katakana, and hiragana which can be quite the chore. Regardless, I'm looking forward to seeing it complete. And lastly, what criteria was the motive behind deleting the "Actors By Performance" Category? I didn't have a part in that, so I have no idea what those criteria are. By all means, enlighten me, because as far as I know, this category is quite sustainable. OtakuMan (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another aspect of your issue is that it rapidly spirals into adding dozens of categories to highly popular articles, making intra-wiki navigation unwieldy. If this cat is allowed, why shouldn't vampires also be filed under Category:Characters in the Twilight films, Category:Characters in the Twilight books, Category:Characters in the film Blood Lust, Category:Characters in the film First Bite, etc. etc.? For that matter, the article Death would be in hundreds of cats for vaguely applying to thousands of books and films. Again, though Castlevania is definitely notable as a videogame series, the monsters listed in this cat are not notable due to their appearance therein. Same reason we avoid categories like "Left handed actors", as those people might happen to be left-handed, but they aren't notable for being left-handed. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An interesting twist on the "performers by performance" style of overcategorization, but still wholly analogous. Appearing in this game is not defining for the monsters. The list seems to be the appropriate place for "stuff" like this. (Notice how I tactfully avoided the word "fancruft" in my comment?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To allow navigation across articles by the common characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 02:42, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Common characteristic"? Having a figure in a video game series based upon a certain mythical figure? How is "appearing in the Castlevania series" worth adding a category to Vampire? How is someone looking up Succubus aided by the knowledge that said figure has Castlevania-ness in common with Minotaur? Seriously, we're talking about figures with over a millennium of cultural resonance, and yet somehow appearing in a video game series which began in 1986 is a vital aspect of their societal role? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:28, 29 November 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:Black Saint/Soul Note Records albums[edit]

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: renaming for now as nominated to match main article; encourage a re-nomination of this category (along with the artists category) if change is desired. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Black Saint/Soul Note albums to match parent article and category: Category:Black Saint/Soul Note artists. Cosprings (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment – Black Saint/Soul Note seems to be a made-up name and as such should surely be changed to something not including "/" (and both categories changed to match the article name). Occuli (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right about that. However, only one article is really needed and neither label can be described as the "parent" label. What do you suggest? Cosprings (talk) 14:24, 21 November 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:Action on climate change[edit]

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. No consensus to retain. Suggested re-purposings best achieved through a fresh start rather than a rename plus extensive trimming and pruning. --Xdamrtalk 15:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Action on climate change (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It's still unclear what should be put in the category. But, more to the point, the 99. anon will put any people, organizations, events, slogans, campaigns, protests, movies, murals, postcards, neckties, samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos or categories which, even tangentially relate to mitigation of global warming. Unless anons can be prevented from adding articles to this category, it's unmaintainable, even if there were an appropriate definition. However, I cannot imagine an appropriate definition, so it would probably be better to delete the category and start over. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and heavily weed: I suggest a rename to something like "Climate change activism" or "Global warming activism", and to weed out all of the cruft. This could then run parallel to some kind of weeded science-ey category, perhaps a weeded "global warming" one. Every category on this topic, in fact, looks really crufty, and I've just started running into 99.X's additions of random tangents to them. Awickert (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But wait... even if I go through and organize the categories, every Fred, Jane, and Harry will add their favorite things to "cat:global warming", so maybe completely not worth the effort. Awickert (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. I found the category useful. It certainly needs to be better organised in subcategories (like many other categories). A guideline or even discussion on what qualifies and what doesn't on the category's talk page might help cleanup and maintenance. Elekhh (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would only help if the anon 99.* were prohibited from adding articles or categories to the category. They are still (as far as I can tell, randomly) adding articles. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:36, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Climate change. Many of the subcategories are in there already. Looks like this category was created at a later time, without giving the issue due consideration. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems a reasonable idea, but each entry and category still would need to be looked at to see if it (a) belongs only in subcategories, or (b) has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. Might make more sense to delete and start over, as most of them were already in a category. I'm not absolutely certain, but I believe almost all entries were added by the 99. anon, either here, or in one of the umbrella organization merged into this category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:49, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the upmerge suggestion is noble, I see that creating more problems then it solves. Many of these articles and categories are already within the parent structure. The current contents seem to be a random collection of what someone wants to include. While the heavily weed suggestion would help, that fact alone says the category is not workable. I have no objection if we really need it, to creating a better named, clearly focused category. But this category is best put out of its misery. Even one who opined rename, seems to understand that deletion may be the best option. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:30, 3 December 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.

Doctor Who serials by location[edit]

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:
--Xdamrtalk 14:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Doctor Who serials set in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Doctor Who serials set outside England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not useful to divide stories by whether they are set in England, and why England in particular? Tim! (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. DW is a BBC show and the series is often set in England for that reason. There are occasions where it was set on Earth but not in England and they usually were notable exceptions in some way, e.g. for historic or production reasons. For example the "outside England" category allows navigation to serials like The Fires of Pompeii (which is notable for being filmed in Italy and set in Pompeii) or The Girl in the Fireplace (where the setting of France is important). On the other hand, for serials like An Unearthly Child and Aliens of London the setting of England is relevant to the story and the audience could easily relate to those places seen on screen. Regards SoWhy 11:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • One of the big problems with this system of categorisation is that action within in any given serial is that it can move between settings - The Girl in the Fireplace is set in France and on space station, An Uneartly Child is set briefly in London and then in an unknown location in the year 100,000 BC. This would lead to many stories being in both categories rendering them both useless. Also BBC is British Broadcasting Corporation, not the English Broadcasting Corporation! Tim! (talk) 08:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That may be but the category is not called "serials set only in England". And while the BBC is for the whole UK, most DW serials that were set on Earth were and are set in England. Regards SoWhy 14:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the new DW is partially based in WALES, which is not England. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 06:43, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is filmed in Wales but the serials are usually set in London (unlike Torchwood). Regards SoWhy 14:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite alot of the new DW episodes are not set in London when still on or about Earth. 76.66.197.2 (talk) 09:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 11:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see slight potential justification for Category:Doctor Who serials set on Earth, but not for this. Grutness...wha? 20:48, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Grutness Declan Clam (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Suggestion If these categories are deleted, can we agree on Grutness suggestion and recategorize the articles to Category:Doctor Who serials set on Earth? Regards SoWhy 14:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - why create these exactly? What's important about an episodes setting? 188.221.79.22 (talk) 14:12, 24 November 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:Rapper discographies[edit]

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 Category:Rapper discographies to Category:Hip hop discographies'. --Xdamrtalk 14:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Rapper discographies to Category:Hip hop discographies
Nominator's rationale: To match the pattern of "[Name of genre] discographies" and the precedent of counting "rap" as "hip hop" (note that "Rap albums" is a redirect to "Hip hop albums"). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:22, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the rapper discog and hip hop groups discog categories into the hip hop discogs category. A differentiation between solo rapper and hip hop group is not necessary.Cosprings (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I agree with Cosprings. It really isn't necessary to have them seperated. EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 14:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are currently several subcategories for groups within genres of music (e.g. Category:Rock music discographies and Category:Rock music groups discographies), but not one for solo artists within a genre other than this one. It seems to me like if it is worthwhile to differentiate amongst groups it would be worthwhile to differentiate amongst solo artists (and record labels) if there are enough articles to justify subcategorization. In this case, it seems like there are. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:35, 24 November 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:College tennis players[edit]

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 Category:College tennis players to Category:College tennis players in the United States per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_27#Category:Intercollegiate_athletics_in_the_United_States. --14:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Propose renaming Category:College tennis players to Category:Intercollegiate tennis players in the United States
Nominator's rationale: for clarity, that those listed are only tennis players for (varsity team of) universities and colleges in the United States and per Category:Intercollegiate baseball players in the United States, Category:Intercollegiate athletes in the United States etc. Mayumashu (talk) 03:09, 21 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_21&oldid=1144514645"