Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 November 15

< November 14	November 16 >

November 15[edit]

Category:Eurasians by occupation[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete all that were nominated/tagged. - jc37 10:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as a non-notable intersection by ethnicity. Here, "Eurasian" is used as a term for mixed European and Asian heritage. Are "Eurasian actors" or "Eurasian musicians" treated any differently from non-Eurasians? Many of the entries here are already in Category:Eurasians. szyslak 23:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Eurasians by occupation and the subcategories, after checking that each name is appropriately included in another category of actors / models / musicians / singers / sportspeople, otherwise the articles would be accidentally removed from those category structures. Per nom on the basis of a non-notable intersection by ethnicity. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the nominators rationale. BigFrank 11/16/07
Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 18:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete irrelevant race + occupation trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whole tree - Having looked at the Eurasian article it is clear that its subject matter covers many different mixed-race groups of people. The potential population of the category is too diverse to merit its survival. Indeed, in various countries, such as UK, the term "Eurasian" is not in fact used, though there are people who fit the definition. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whole tree - racial biology cats should be avoided. Both the categories 'European' and 'Asian' are already wide, is say a person of mixed Greek-Iranian origin a 'Eurasian'? --Soman (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I say we give Category:Eurasians its own day at CFD once this discussion closes. There have been some pretty good arguments for deleting the whole tree, but that idea hasn't been on the table for most of the time. szyslak 14:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category: Runestones, Blekinge[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Runestones, Blekinge to Category:Runestones in Blekinge

Nominator's rationale: Suggest renaming the above category in order to harmonize with the entity Category:Runestones in Scania and in order to differentiate these two categories from the Swedish runestones (currently categorized as "Runestones, Foo"). The main category that included both the Blekinge and Scania runestone articles was renamed here:22 August 07 Runestones, Skåneland to Category:Runestones in Scania. The region Skåneland includes Blekinge, Scania and Halland and the runestones erected here are part of the Category:Cultural_heritage of Denmark (the area did not become part of Sweden until 1658: language, style, content etc differ from the Swedish runestones). Since they are located in what is today Sweden, they will need to be listed in both main categories, as per "Dealing with overlaps: When historical and political complexities (such as mergers and splits) create articles that belong to two countries, do not create a 'Foo of X and Y'. Instead, list articles in both 'Foo of X' and 'Foo of Y'"), and need to be in an established format for places, in this case "Foo in X". Pia 23:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, per above.--Berig 16:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support per above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Survival horror video games[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was UpMerge Category:Survival horror video games to Category:Horror video games. In looking over the two cats, nearly all of the members of the subcat are already in the parent (including several subcategories of both). - jc37 10:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This category is just a repeat of the category Horror Video Games and all of the games on that list is on this list too. So to keep this category is just pointless. RedNeckIQ55 19:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This is not synonymous with horror video games. It is a distinct subcategory. Doczilla 05:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this is a well defined and defining characteristic, and a common genre of video games. -- 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Their is no real difference between the two category's. The Category:Horror video games is much better and it allows more games to be added. - BigFrank 11/16/07

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Time travelers in Star Trek[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - not a defining characteristic of the characters. As humorously noted on the category talk page, so many ST characters have traveled in time that the category would probably be smaller if it were for ST characters who haven't traveled in time. Note that a logical parent, Category:Fictional time travelers, has been deleted multiple times and salted. While I am amused that at the moment the category has 47 members, it still needs to go. Otto4711 18:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Time traveling is not a defining characteristic, in or out of Star Trek. szyslak 02:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overcategorization. We already killed time traveler categories, and certainly don't need a subcategory of a deleted category. Doczilla 05:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Since they travel faster than the speed of light ("warp 3" = c x 3?) don't pretty much all of the characters in Star Trek travel through time, except for those poor savage slobs they meet on planets every once in awhile? Snocrates 11:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category is pointless. It has no reason to exist. BigFrank 11/16/07
Delete didn't the whole crew of the Enterprise go back in time several times? not-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not defining, notable (even in-Universe), or part of an overall classification scheme. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Album covers with no commentary[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Album covers with no commentary to Category:Album articles without cover art commentary

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarity and consistency. This category is for album articles without commentary on the cover art, not cover art images without commentary. Precedent at Category:Album articles without cover art and sub-categories of Category:Album articles needing attention. --PEJL 16:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, having checked that this self-referencing category is correctly being applied to talk pages rather than in mainspace. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:00, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Free spreadsheets[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Free spreadsheet software. Feel free to nominate Category:Spreadsheets and Category:Online spreadsheets together for similar renaming, but as the categories weren't tagged, I won't extend this decision to them automatically. Bencherlite ^Talk 11:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Free spreadsheets to Category:Free spreadsheets (software)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most categories used for software have either "software" or "(software)" as part of the name. Thus quickly identified in lists of subcategories and supporting "Category:software" searches. tooold 14:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Free spreadsheet software - "Spreadsheet" should be singular and there's no need for parentheses. Otto4711 16:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any name that includes "software"is ok. tooold 19:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Free spreadsheet software. Also recommend including Category:Spreadsheets and Category:Online spreadsheets in this nomination. --Eliyak T·C 12:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Otto's suggestion. Free spreadsheets is pretty vague. Ğavin Ťing 16:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neat - Otto's suggestion matches the article, Spreadsheet, and follows Wiki conventions of adding modifiers such as Free, software, without changing the article name. If the other articles, Eliyak's comment, can be included (all with Otto's change) that will save a few trips back to this list. tooold (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Japanese citrus[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The very same reason as Category:Korean fruits like Countries don't own fruit. See the delete discussion regarding it. [1] In addition, the bigger problem is that except three species in the category such as Natsumikan, Iyokan, Amanatsu, the rest of the fruits are all from China or other foreign countries and are found throughout East Asia. The rest of the fruits have to be moved into Japanese ingredients or just Category:Fruit. The names of the seemingly Japanese fruits are unilateral made by Japanese editors without any consensus being reached and no ground that the term is widely known in the English-speaking world. The three species of the native Japanese fruit can be also categorized into "Japanese ingredients" or "Species developed by Japan". If the category, Japanese citrus has to exist in wiki, the same rule also might apply upon any Chinese native fruits and in fact, most of fruits eaten in Japan are from China. Wiki has only a few country names tagged onto fruit category like Category:Wine grapes of Italy, Category:Wine grapes of Greece. These two categories have grapes used for wine and the latter has suitable threshold to keep the cat. With the only three Japanese native fruits can't advocate to keep the category. Besides, there are so many fruit mutants from originals and fruits developed by farmers and researchers in the world as Japanese developed some species of fruits. --Appletrees 11:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment reduce to the three truly Japanese ones, delete the articles that are POV-forks. Japan is an archipelago, but is "citrus" too restrictive? 132.205.99.122 19:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- I only propose to delete this specific category not the articles even though they have problems on their article title. I mentioned it above for better understanding. Changing article titles of them are another matter and I ought to discuss with people possibly into the articles in future. I referred to this Japanese citrus when I created the Korean fruits category, which is also being considered for deletion. I just want the same rule applied to similar things. --Appletrees 19:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely strong keep, not even any question about this. Citrus is a huge category and splitting off citrus fruits that are endemic to Japan is a very logical and valuable subcategory. Please direct efforts toward improving Wikipedia, not destroying quite valid subcategories that assist our users in finding exactly the information they need. Badagnani (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Badagnani, refrain from using such the abusive language. If Korean fruits category is deleted, the reference of it also is implausible to exist solely in Wikipedia according to User:Saintjust's rationale for the delete proposal like this, "Countries don't own fruit." Besides, except 3 citrus, none of them are really "only" Japanese citrus.The names of the unfamiliar fruits could be changed with discussion at any time.--Appletrees (talk) 10:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Three citruses native to Japan is good enough. --61.202.37.174 (talk) 14:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, an anon of Tokyo, Japan. Three are not good enough to keep it. The fruits are also eaten in other countries like China transmitted her native fruits to the outside and I just want the same standard. --Appletrees (talk) 14:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - without knowing anything of the subject, would the solution not be to have a category somthing like "East Asian Fruits", covering those native to China, Korea and Japan. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Badagnani. Hermeneus (user/talk) 22:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — I don't see any reason why "only" three native plants are not sufficient for a category. The purpose of categories is to facilitate the location of similar articles; it seems clear that this helps in this respect. --Haemo (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Frew Publications[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete category with only one article which is now a redirect (and should probably be deleted anyway). Doczilla 09:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as an unnecessary eponymous category that is effectively empty. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't do books by publisher cats. -- Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Ğavin Ťing 16:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Comics by Joe Sacco[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. The category appears to be restricted enough. (I would say that if a comic book has the same writer all the way through, it's probably okay for a category here. So the Ennis category seems fine to me.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 08:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Why this, with 6 entries, of all the "Comics by author"? He is in "his prime" & still producing. Johnbod 14:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral, leaning toward delete - Categorizing comics by author concerns me because with the longevity of comic book titles they can have large numbers of writers. Additionally, multiple creative people are involved in each comic book so having this category structure could logically lead to Category:Comics by penciller, Category:Comics by inker, Category:Comics by letterer, Category:Comics by editor and the like. Tremendous potential for category clutter. If this can reasonably be restricted so that everyone who ever wrote an issue of a Spider-Man comic doesn't end up on the article then I would reconsider. Otto4711 17:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without knowing anything much about comics, I understand all Sacco's are one-off one-man works - all his own work. The case for banning categorisation of such works has to be made. I would agree about long running team efforts. Johnbod 17:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if the categorization scheme can be properly restricted then I have no problem with the scheme. I'm at a loss, however, as to how such a category would be constructed. Look at the mess that trying to categorize collaboratively-written songs is. Subcats for songs by lyricist, songs by composer, songs by songwriter with little consistency and lots of overlap. This comics tree is still small so best to either nip it now or get tight guidelines down early. Otto4711 20:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a note to Category:Comics by author saying:" This category should only contain sub-categories for authors of "solo" comics or comic books, who have both written and drawn the material." At the moment some sub-cats by author in the category contain a mixture of solo & joint efforts. Only authors & artists are included. One sub-cat, Category:Comics by Garth Ennis seems to contain no solo efforts as such - he is a writer only. -- Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video game currencies[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Video game currencies to Category:Fictional currencies

Nominator's rationale: Merge - main category is not so huge that subdividing the fictional currencies based on medium is warranted. The oher parent, fictional elements from video games, is up for merger and looks likely to close as merge. Both of the articles in the category are themselves up for deletion (one prodded, the other AFDed) but should one or the other survive they should be housed in the fictional currency cat. Otto4711 05:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nomination. Doczilla 06:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It seems unlikely that there are any such currencies which would merit an article. --Eliyak T·C 12:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Cardston municipal district[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Cardston municipal district to Category:People from Cardston County, Alberta

Nominator's rationale: The Cardston Municipal District in Alberta was re-named "Cardston County" in 2000; see government reference HERE. Related article is at Cardston County, Alberta. Proposed name conforms with other sub-categories of Category:People by county or municipal district in Alberta. Ubi Terrarum 04:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Cited website seems to demonstrate name has changed. Snocrates (talk) 02:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Computer security specialists, and others[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was relisted to CfD 2007 November 24. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: 'Professional' 'Specialist' was POV words. Sdv213s 00:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge:Category:Computer specialists and Category:Computer professionals into Category:People in information technology; Rename Category:Computer security specialists to perhaps Category:Computer security people. The first two seem un-needed intervening layers, with no clear distinction, and are parents and subs of each other (always a bad sign). What does nominator want to do with them? Johnbod 03:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Johnbod; if the nominator isn't going to suggest something, let consensus form without it....Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Johnbod, but I would prefer Category:Computer professionals to be the survivor to exclude those who merely use IT. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but to Category:Computer specialists. Avoid "professional" as this term introduces ambiguity - while some may belong to a professional body, it is not a requirement to go through the licensing steps or handle liability, such as is required of "the professions", e.g. doctors, lawyers, civil, structural or other engineering professions. Ephebi (talk) 09:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename or keep --- "cryptographers" have it easy, they don't need to be "specialists" or "professionals". What do you want to call security people? The subjects of these articles are all notable for very similar reasons, all working on similar problems. Merging them into "People in IT" is like moving "Physicists" into "Scientists". --- tqbf 05:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

? No one is suggesting merging the security people; the other categories cover a very wide range indeed. What do you want renamed, and to what? Johnbod (talk) 05:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly nobody is suggesting merging all the article content. But merging this category with "Computer Specialists"? The current category is descriptive, informative, useful, and encyclopedic (it's also flypaper for vanity articles, which I'm glad of). If the name needs to change, that's fine. I don't have a good alternative. "Persons involved with information security"? "Information security practitioners" (bad, excludes researchers)? It's tricky. But merging with a general computer category destroys value; it doesn't add it. --- tqbf 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat, no one above is suggesting that. Johnbod (talk) 11:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greek schools[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Greek schools into Category:Schools in Greece

Nominator's rationale: The schools share reduncancy and neither is large. Schools in Greece appears to be the current naming convention with Greek schools a redundant category. Mikebar 10:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Mostly the same schools anyway. Leave cat redirest perhaps? Johnbod 14:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Not sure that a redirect is a good idea, because "Greek schools" could also refer to schools outside Greece which teach in the Greek language. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) —Preceding comment was added at 22:57, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, with the caveat indicated by BHG, which has a more widespread effect: English schools, French schools are all over the world. Another day... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.