Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 29

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< 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
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]
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]
Category:Songs that failed to chart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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
    ]
  • 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]
  • 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]
Category:Songs produced by Maestro (producer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
Category:Canadian MPs who have crossed the floor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
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? 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: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
]
Why would "categories can't contain redlinks" be a rationale for keeping the category? Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 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]
  • 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.
    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]
Category:Child actors that have a youtube channel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A category just to show what "child actors" have YouTube accounts just seems unnecessary. FrehleySpace Ace 17:13, 29 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]
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
talk) 16:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:Celebutantes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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]
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]
Category:Suspended deck bridges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete on the basis of WP:No original research.
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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.
  4. Each bridge attemped to be put into the Category:Suspended deck bridges should already be entered into the appropriate category.
  5. 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
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

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
]

I have unpopulated the category. Stating in my edit sumarries for the few bridges that were placed there that a
suspended-deck suspension bridge. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:18, 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 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_29&oldid=1138392776"