Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21

Category:Songs written by Tim Wheeler

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: Keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs written by Tim Wheeler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is entirely redundant to Ash songs - Tim Wheeler writes or co-writes most of Ash's songs, and (unless I'm very much mistaken) doesn't write for anyone else, so... not needed. Bobyllib (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs specifically says categorise songs by songwriter (unless there is no head article to support the category). --Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 22 March 2010 (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:Yaroslavl State Medical Academy

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) 02:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Yaroslavl State Medical Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. Eponymous category for the article Yaroslavl State Medical Academy. No sign of any prospect of expanding the category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 21 March 2010 (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:931 BC disestablishments

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) 02:36, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:931 BC disestablishments to Category:10th-century BC disestablishments
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per
WP:OC#SMALL, this category has little prospect of expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:46, 21 March 2010 (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:Goddess of Democracy

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Goddess of Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. Eponymous category for a single article and its associated image. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 21 March 2010 (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:Single-player games that require a constant internet connection

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Single-player games that require a constant internet connection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. This may be something worth mentioning in the article on a video game, but it doesn't need a category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, this is an important distinction to make nowadays, as it is a new phenomenon. This is not games that require an internet connection to merely load the game, but require a connection the entire time the game is being played. Any break in connectivity for any reason, whether it's a hiccup in the local router, failure at the game company's server, or anything in between, will stop gameplay immediately until the connection is restored. Oftentimes, this stop will include a loss of game progress. This is an extremely controversial new development, and it is definitely worthwhile to be able to find a list of all games that do this, as many gamers are looking for this type of information for a list of games not to buy. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sales catalogue. And it's perverse to have a list of things not to buy. If anyone is interested in the game, they can read the article and see the note about internet-required, but if they aren't interested enough to read the article, then a reasons-not-to-buy category is irrelevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The category isn't saying "this is a reason not to buy." The category isn't being judgmental of the worth or value or desirability the game, it's just responding to an overwhelming amount of media interest in this kind of DRM. - Chardish (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then write an article on the topic. Except, of course that your comment below about that being appropraite " at some point", implies that you think not yet. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been a notable and significant topic of press coverage lately. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] ... and I could go on and on. This topic might even be worthy of its own article at some point, but since there's a lot of interest in this phenomenon, it makes sense to at least have a category to track it. - Chardish (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tracking things is what blogs are for. This is an encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, categorize instead of "track" then. My point stands. - Chardish (talk) 16:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't. If, as you imply, the topic is not yet worthy of an article then it definitely doesn't need a category. The news media get into a flurry about all sorts of things which don't make appropriate categories . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Come now, not every category should have an article and now every article should have a category. Do we need an article for
Museums in Vancouver? What about People associated with solar power? There are plenty of worthwhile categories that don't need articles or don't have articles, and the lack of a basis for an article is not a reason to delete. I'm assuming good faith here, but you really haven't built a case for deletion except for just saying "overcategorization." - Chardish (talk) 18:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
The test is not whether a head article does exist, but whether an encyclopedic head article could be written on the subject. Are you seriously suggesting that there would be any problem in writing a an encyclopedic head article on the three topics you mentioned? There are lots reliable sources for all three of them, to establish notability for the topic ... but all you have on these games is a few websites and a Globe & Mail blog. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of those websites are the UK Register and CNN. I think those imply notability. Also, I think that an article about the theory of requiring an always on internet connection for single player games could be written, while the category could list games that actually do it in practice. The list and the concept are two separate things, and require different implementations. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 05:15, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as stated above. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an aid to navigation across articles for games with this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a clear example of overcategorization, and, if I may say so, fancruft. It would make more sense to mention this is the articles about the game and to write an article about it if that could be done at this time. It's also a triple intersection. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This category will become more and more notable and useful as time goes by and the number of games using this form of
Digital Rights Management increases. And it is quite distinct from the category of multiplayer games that require an internet connection, as that is simply required because of sheer functionality; this is something distinct from a simple gameplay factor. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 01:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Great—write an article about it that survives and I would consider a category being appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete through characterization as well as implicit POV-ness (as right now, it specifically applies to game from one publisher that is currently being ridiculed by gamers because of this.) There is possibly a need for a category about SP games that share data with a network to advance the SP game - things like Spore and CitiesXL - but this is purposely designed to isolate DRM-loaded games, and thats POV. --MASEM (t) 13:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to overcategorization, if a major amount of games start requiring a constant net connection and the topic becomes notable rather than just a Ubisoft thing, then we should reconsider it. Right now the category is biased against constant internet DRM.--ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just
DRM. Electronic Arts is using it in Command & Conquer 4: Tiberian Twilight. Again, this is a category that is only going to grow and increase in notablity. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 15:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd say keep it as well, it is not as much overcategorization as categorizing every kind of
arcade system board. The average reader doesn't even know what an arcade system board is. NeoGenPT (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
@Torchiest, saying that the category "is only going to grow and increase in notablity" is
crystal-ball gazing
, and possibly an illustration of the POV-pushing which Masem noted.
@NeoGenPT, see
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I've seen
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS because there would be no examples of it. There is also one other very common argument used in these kind of debates that I'm wondering how it didn't become an official policy yet, the one that says "I agree but there is too much work and too few editors." There is no such thing as too much work in Wikipedia, just look at the size of it. NeoGenPT (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
It's not an excuse to look the other way, quite the reverse. It's a reminder both that one piece of junk is different from another, and we have to start somewhere, so removing one piece of junk is a first step to removing other bits of junk. If there are other categories which you think should be deleted, please go ahead and open a CFD on them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ubisoft is using this DRM in all their new games. Thus, by definition, the category will grow as long as they are making games. Electronic Arts is one of the top five biggest video game companies in the world, and their usage of this new technology is notable. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Torchiest, the size of the category as a separate issue from any "increase in notablity". Your suggestion that anything done by a big company is notable is wrong; see
WP:NOTINHERITED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:12, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm not claiming it's notable solely because it's EA. It's notable because it's a change in the core functionality of the games. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:29, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then you completely misunderstand what Wikipedia:Notability is all about. Please read the guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per explanation by User:Masem, and "This is an extremely controversial new development, and it is definitely worthwhile to be able to find a list of all games that do this, as many gamers are looking for this type of information for a list of games not to buy." written above by User:Torchiest, which is totally at odds with what an encyclopedia should be. A careful look should be made of the title, too, 'Single-player games that require a constant internet connection,' that word 'constant' is a weasel word in this context, especially in an unreferenced category. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that my initial remarks were inappropriate. However, this is a notable category. I'm not sure how constant could be considered a weasel word, since it accurately describes what is required. I suppose other options would be continuous or uninterrupted. Could you elaborate on what makes you think it's a weasel word? Torchiest (talk | contribs) 22:05, 23 March 2010 (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:Industrial articles needing attention

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:
WikiProject Industrial Notice}}, and the project is being revived. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Category:Industrial articles needing attention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Maintenance category apparently added directly to articles rather than to their talk pages. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware that this type of category was supposed to be added to the talk page rather than the article page. I will move the category tags to the associated talk pages. This category is useful to WikiProject Industrial, however, and should not be deleted. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of category is normally populated through the WikiProject banners, rather than by directly adding the category to a page. However, the lack of activity at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Industrial suggests that the project is either moribund or defunct, so the category serves no useful purpose even if applied correctly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original founder of the project has been MIA for a few months, but half of the members are still active editors, and I'm trying to revive the project. However, I'm still learning how to use all of the features of wiki, including things like adding categories and tags correctly. I feel like this is a case of
WP:BITE. It would be more constructive if you could offer some guidance on how to add the categorization through banners functionality. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 14:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
I would have to agree that this is a case of
WP:BITE. Torchiest and I have been working to organize this project again. As he said, we both are still in the learning process. Xe7al (talk) 00:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep. All tags have been removed from articles, and the category is now controlled through the project banner. Torchiest (talk | contribs) 17:03, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Provided it becomes a talk page maintenance category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Our group is getting back on its feet, and we are in the process of recruiting more collaborators. The category will be extremely helpful to our WikiProject. Xe7al (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2010 (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:Perennials of Ontario

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. Currently empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Perennials of Ontario (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. Both of the plants in this category are widely-distributed in North America, and categorising them by every state or province in which they are found would cause massive category-clutter. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most states/provinces in Anglo North America are geographically larger than any country in Europe aside from European Russia... 76.66.194.4 (talk) 04:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not so: of the US States, only Texas & Califoria are bigger than France, and only 11 states are bigger than the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:42, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find it hard to believe that including it's maritime area, Hawaii is not larger that most countries in Europe, or that Alaska is smaller than France, since Alaska is bigger than Texas and California. And isn't Ontario larger than France? 76.66.194.32 (talk) 03:56, 24 March 2010 (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 with lyrics by Bobby Troup

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/2010 April 5#Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:58, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup to Category:Songs written by Bobby Troup
Nominator's rationale: Merge. A songwriter is a person who writes either lyrics and music, Therefore the sole entry in the 'lyrics by' would fit just as snugly in the songwriter category. Richhoncho (talk) 13:34, 21 March 2010 (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 with music by Mylène Farmer

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/2010 April 5#Category:Songs with music by Mylène Farmer. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Songs with music by Mylène Farmer to Category:Songs written by Mylène Farmer
Nominator's rationale: Merge. A songwriter is some one who writes either lyrics or music, therefore any entry in the music category would be equally at home in the "songwriter" category. It is also overcategorization. Richhoncho (talk) 13:26, 21 March 2010 (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:Seminaries and theological colleges in Myanmar

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:Seminaries and theological colleges in Myanmar to Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Burma, and rename Category:Christian college in Burma to Category:Christian colleges in Burma, with no prejudice against renominating (such a nomination should perhaps also include Category:Christian colleges in China). There was no consensus about what to do with Category:Christian college in Burma, but we can at least rename it to contain the correct plural form of "college". -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The three categories are recently-created duplicates which I found in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 21 March 2010 (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:Round churches in England

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: Keep. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Round churches in England to Category:Churches in England
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is overcategorisation: I have found find no other church-by-shape categories in Category:Churches in England or in the sub-categories of Category:Church buildings. There is already a list at Round church. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:40, 21 March 2010 (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:Fruits of Florida

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) 02:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fruits of Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Many fruits are grown in a wide variety of countries, and categorising them by all the countries in which they are grown would create massive category clutter. That's why we do not have a Category:Fruits of the United States of Category:Fruits of France.
This newly-created category goes even further, and starts categorising fruits by national sub-division, which is a recipe for even worse category clutter. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I understand your logic in this case. I'm new and really do not have a good understanding yet of 'Category' and 'Sub-Category'.

Could I have instead a Category:Mangoes of Florida with all 103 photos that are now in Fruits of Florida?

Any other suggestions?

Thanks. Langra (talk) 20:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard the above entry. I just found out that you were talking about Fruit Of Florida in Wikipedia and NOT in Wikimedia Commons. Sorry about that.

I have no problem with your deletion plan for Wikipedia 'Fruits Of Florida'. Thanks. Langra (talk) 21:01, 21 March 2010 (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:Bus routes in Cardiff

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:Bus transport in Cardiff, with no prejudice against recreating Category:Bus routes in Cardiff if the number of articles about bus routes in Caridff increases significantly (whether it should is outside the scope of CfD). -- Black Falcon (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Bus routes in Cardiff to Category:Bus transport in Cardiff
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category currently contains only 3 articles, and there does not seem to be much scope for expanding it with currently-existing articles. The renaming widens its scope, and allows for a better possibility of expansion, by allowing the inclusion of bus operators such as Cardiff Bus and infrastructure such as Cardiff Central bus station. No objection to re-creating the category if there is a flood of new articles on notable bus routes in the city of Cardiff. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 21 March 2010 (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:Cities of Turkey on River

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) 02:40, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cities of Turkey on River to Category:Coastal cities and towns in Turkey
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found doing cleanup as an apparent incomplete speedy. I don't believe that the previous proposal would fly. I'm also not sure about the name I added to the proposal, but this is the form used elsewhere on the wiki. So feel free to offer a better alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 21 March 2010 (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/2010_March_21&oldid=1077425624"