Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 10

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< October 9 October 11 >

October 10

Food product brands

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 on 16th. Kbdank71 12:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brand name food products to Category:Food brands

Category:Brand name alcohol products to Category:Alcoholic beverage brands
Category:Brand name beverage products to Category:Beverage brands
Category:Brand name breads to Category:Bread brands
Category:Brand name chocolate to Category:Chocolate brands
Category:Brand name condiments to Category:Condiment brands
Category:Brand name confectionery to Category:Confectionery brands
Category:Brand name cookies to Category:Cookie brands
Category:Brand name crackers to Category:Cracker brands
Category:Brand name dairy products to Category:Dairy product brands
Category:Brand name desserts to Category:Dessert brands
Category:Brand name diet products to Category:Diet product brands
Category:Brand name frozen desserts to Category:Frozen desserts brands
Category:Brand name hot dogs to Category:Hot dog brands
Category:Brand name poultry to Category:Poultry brands
Category:Brand name snack foods to Category:Snack food brands
Category:Brand name soups to Category:Soup brands
Category:Brand name yoghurts to Category:Yoghurt brands
Rename: The Foo brands formulation is prevalent throughout Category:Brands and its subcategories with the sole exception of foods and beverages. I also prefer this form as it is more compact and allows natural sorting in the Category:Brands branch. Note: related CFR underway for Category:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods.-choster (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2008 (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:People movers

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 at 2008 OCT 20. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People movers to Category:???
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The current name is ambiguous when restricted to a single type of people mover. The question is, what to do the contents of this category. And if reusing this category as a parent for the various types of people movers. I believe that the current entries are might be better classified as
Moving walkways at some airports really meet the definition since they are 'fully automated, grade-separated mass transit systems' when they cross over roadways. I'll note that Category:Automated guideway transport exists and again Category:Monorails is also not included there. So bringing this here for a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment: I have not found a corresponding Wikipedia article for "automated guideway transport" to assist in providing a definition of what "automated guideway transport" might be. Do you know of any definitions? —Sladen (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about Automated guideway transit? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The second line of the
WP:GHITS should be taken is a drop of salt, "people mover" results one-hundred times as many results as "automated guideway *". I'm wondering if the relative frequency in use (and/or obscurity) of the terms reflects in the size of Category:Automated guideway transport and the automated guideway transit articles. —Sladen (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. As in keep it simple. Category:Automated fixed guideway systems is a) just going to confuse readers, and b) by definition, is not limited to people. That could include the systems used to route your luggage from check-in to plane at the airport. Besides, people mover has this nice description: the term "people mover" is generic, and may use technologies such as monorail, duorail, automated guideway transit or maglev. --Kbdank71 13:54, 16 October 2008 (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:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods

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 on 21st. Kbdank71 15:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Brand name potato chips, potato crisps, and other potato-based snack foods to Category:UNKNOWN
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I have no idea, but anything but this. Perhaps
talk) 18:34, 10 October 2008 (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:Merlin episodes

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 to match article. Kbdank71 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Merlin episodes to Category:Merlin (TV series) episodes
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match article
talk) 17:15, 10 October 2008 (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:Conan the Barbarian films

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 on 16th. Kbdank71 13:07, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Conan the Barbarian films to Category:all parents except Fantasy films by series
Nominator's rationale: Merge - only two entries in the category with no likelihood of expansion in the near future. Two films doesn't really constitute a "series" and two articles vs one subcat in each of the parent categories is not an unwieldly expansion.
talk) 16:59, 10 October 2008 (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:Pseudonutrition

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. Kbdank71 13:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pseudonutrition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No reliable sources that such a category indeed exists. If Pseudonutrition makes no claims of medical or nutritive benefit, then it has no reason to be called "pseudo-" anything. Appears to exist to label against
WP:POV policy ZayZayEM (talk) 06:57, 10 October 2008 (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:American TV series based on telenovelas

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 as nominated. If desired, a future nomination could consider "based on" vs. "adapted from". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American TV series based on telenovelas to Category:American television series based on telenovelas
Nominator's rationale: Rename - expand the abbreviation.
talk) 06:13, 10 October 2008 (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:American TV programs based on Australian TV programs

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 as nominated. If desired, a future nomination could consider "based on" vs. "adapted from". Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American TV programs based on Australian TV programs to Category:American television series based on Australian television series
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per recent CFD that resulted in the similarly-named American/British category being renamed. This expands the abbreviation and, since this is for American series, uses American terminology..
talk) 06:12, 10 October 2008 (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:American programs based on foreign programs

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 at 2008 OCT 20. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:American programs based on foreign programs to Category:American television series based on foreign television series
Nominator's rationale: Rename - per recent CFD that resulted in the similarly-named American/British category being renamed. This clarifies what sort of programs and, since this is for American series, uses American terminology.
talk) 06:11, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Can't say as I have a problem with it but if "series from other countries" is preferred I don't have strong feelings.
    talk) 15:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I don't really have strong feelings about this in any direction. I think it's clear when there's a country mentioned by name in the category name that "foreign" means "countries other than the named one" but if it's truly going to result in confusion then I have no objection to wording the name however people think best.
    talk) 17:27, 16 October 2008 (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:Television programs remade oversea

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: no consensus. I really wanted to join this discussion, because a) I'm leaning toward I don't know if this is useful, so delete, and b) but if kept, really needs a rename because the current name sucks (ok, that may be too strong, but look, when you have to read the title, and then re-read it, and re-read it again, just to figure out what the creator meant, and is it actually good grammar or not, then it's poorly named), but then I realized that I wasn't going to convince either of you to change your mind (oh, I almost forgot, ding ding, to your corners, gentlemen), and since this hasn't been touched since the 11th, it should just be closed, to be renominated at a later date. Kbdank71 14:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:Edit: Rename to Category:Television programs remade overseas to add S. --Kbdank71 15:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Television programs remade oversea to "something".

I think I understand what it's trying to include. (But the "oversea" just needs to go : )

Anyway, the name has problems as is, and honestly it's just too broad to be anything but a parent category.

As such, I'm leaning towards renaming to a "Lists of..." category. The non-list members can be merged to a list. (A new one, or an existing one, if found.) - jc37 05:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • "From other countries" implies that the new series is based on series from multiple other countries. I'm not sure about "adapted from" but am leaning toward opposed. We tend to use "adaptations" when talking about specific works (
    talk) 06:43, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The whole point is just to have one category for widely licensed series, plus the odd UK/British etc one. Ones like Big Brother rightly have their own cats, and this super-cat pulls them together. Where is this previous debate you mention above (in the noms 2-3 up)?. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand what the point is, I just disagree that it's a worthwhile thing to categorize. The previous debate mentioned in noms above, which doesn't have any bearing here, is found
    talk) 22:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • It shouldn't be a sub of this category. This category is for shows that originate in Foo and are remade in Boo. Categories for shows made in Boo that are based on shows from Foo shouldn't be included, because the two concepts are opposite. The proper parent for "Fooian shows based on Booian shows" would be something like "Television series based on series from another country", not this. I wonder if you're reading this category backwards like I did.
    talk) 22:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment I'd welcome clarification from Otto & jc as to why, when from the nominations just above they seem to be happy with local categories on cross-border tv remakes/licensing, they seem here to object in principle to a global head category to bring the local cats together. Or have I got this wrong? Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no objection to a head category for shows which are based on shows from other countries. I believe that being based on a show from another country is a defining production characteristic, in the same way that a film's having been based on a novel is defining. I do object to any categorization of source shows that have been remade in other countries. I don't believe that having been made into a show in another country is defining of the original show. The resulting new show should be mentioned in the original's article (e.g.
    talk) 12:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Well, I don't agree with that - it is surely wholly defining of the original Mexican Ugly Betty, Dutch Big Brother & so on that they were licensed internationally, and indeed that this was in these cases the main revenue stream they produced. Frankly this is adopting a viewers perspective rather than an industry one - we should cover both. But in any case, much of the material is already, and rightly, arranged on a global basis, so how do we categorise this, and group it with the lists? Recent noms have demonstrated we are clearly failing to do this. Johnbod (talk) 13:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • talk) 14:06, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • I try to read every word you say, it's just that so often you make so little sense. So just that I'm crystal clear, you're in favor of putting a vague "this TV show was franchised to other countries" category in place. The idea that having a category to advise that a show has been sold to a foreign market is stupid. What does this category tell the reader? Anything useful? No. Creating referenced lists of shows by country and including them in a "Lists of..." category is the better way to present this information. Any category that is presenting the information in terms of the source country should be deleted out of concern for category clutter and because it is a poor way to present the information. While it would be lovely if a category could actually be restricted to just the "widely licensed" programs (and, pardon, what was the objective definition of "widely licensed" again? How many countries are there in a "widely licensed"?) but of course once the category exists there is nothing stopping any editor from adding any TV show that's ever been sold to even a single foreign market. And of course, declaring that the category is off-limits to such entries is POV-pushing. And forgive me, but individual companies' marketing strategies strike me as being somewhat irrelevant since we are not talking about categorizing on the basis of company but of country.
    talk) 14:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]
No that is what you persist in talking about, despite the fact that it is not exclusively what the category is now about or should be about. It is entirely typical of you that when I directly respond to your last point it "strike[s] me as being somewhat irrelevant"! I think we'd better wait on this until the usual. Johnbod (talk) 14:57, 11 October 2008 (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:Sword-and-Sorcery films

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 to Category:Sword and sorcery films. Feel free to create a new parent and reorganize as needed. Kbdank71 13:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sword-and-Sorcery films to Category:Sword and sorcery
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I originally proposed that this category be speedily renamed to Category:Sword-and-sorcery films (with a lowercase "s" in "sorcery"), but some users argued that it did not fit the criteria for speedy renaming. However, the consensus is that it should be renamed to Category:Sword and sorcery instead. I personally have no objections to this. Ixfd64 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2008 (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:Notable Philosophy Majors

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) 04:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Notable Philosophy Majors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The one person currently in this category is not actually known for what her major was in college, and pretty much no one else is either.
talk) 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't know. Most people aren't know for being a Princeton Alumni, but there's a category for that. Llamabr (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2008 (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/2008_October_10&oldid=1074801276"