Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 4

< February 3	February 5 >

February 4[edit]

Category:Alumni and faculty of University of Königsberg[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 discussion was rename to Category:University of Königsberg alumni, and per Bencherlite, list to have the faculty manually removed to Category:University of Königsberg faculty. Kbdank71 14:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni and faculty of University of Königsberg to Category:Alumni and faculty of the University of Königsberg

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proper grammar. Olessi (talk) 23:59, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per nom. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Also, this should really be split into two separate categories, if anyone is willing to put in the effort. LeSnail (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. But per all the other universities of Category:People by university in Germany it should really be split into Category:University of Königsberg alumni and Category:University of Königsberg faculty. Carminis (talk) 18:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. I suggest that this is renamed Category:University of Königsberg alumni and listed by the closing admin at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual for someone to go through the names in the category, placing the faculty members in Category:University of Königsberg faculty. Bencherlite ^Talk 15:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Faculty of the University of Königsberg and remove alumni. Being an alumnus/a of this university is not defining. Snocrates 21:26, 10 February 2008 (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:Military of Kosovo[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Kosovo, not being yet an independent country, does not currently have its own military force.
The category has two articles listed:

Kosovo Force (Not the military of Kosovo, but a NATO-led international force responsible for establishing a safe and secure environment in Kosovo. — If you wish, this would be "a military force in Kosovo")
Kosovo Protection Corps (a civilian emergency service agency, that eschews military or law enforcement functions and has no role in defense. — For details see here)

When/if Kosovo gains independence and creates its own military force, or when/if the UN establishes a local institution with defence & military functions, then this category can be undeleted/recreated... but right now it is inaccurate and misleading.

Ev (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletions. — Ev (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nominator. - Ev (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per Ev. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "in" isn't "of" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, misleading name. GregorB (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom without prejudice to it being re-created after Kosovo declares independence in the next month or two. Snocrates 21:28, 10 February 2008 (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:Game show card 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 discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 14:38, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; note that the category consists of only three actual card-based game shows, and three pricing games on The Price Is Right. Beyond the three actual game shows listed here, I can only think of one other game show that prominently used cards (Super Pay Cards!). Therefore, I feel that this category is overly narrow in its scope and should be deleted. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Perfectly valid category, and certainly not overcategorized. In fact, it's very useful category because it puts context to the actual games, which are far less suited for more generic card game categories. 2005 (talk) 22:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:2005. This is not an overcategorization, and game shows featuring cards and card games are becoming increasingly popular. Rray (talk) 00:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT, what about match game? didn't people write their answers on cards? Note card is a dab page on which playing cards is merely one choice. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It a very nice category. I do not wish to have this deleted, and it was a way to put game show under that category together. And further more, though celebrities write answers on cards, none of them have Jack of Hearts or 10 of Clubs on it.Knowledgeman800 (talk) 9:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Delete - of the six entries, two of them (Card Game (pricing game) and Joker (pricing game)) are not game shows but are rather segments of a game show. They should not be categorized as game shows but instead as The Price is Right pricing games, which they are. Three of the remaining four shows, Gambit (game show), Hit Me and Top Card are all based on blackjack and are all already categorized with other blackjack-based television shows in Category:Blackjack television programs. The one remaining game show, Card Sharks, does not need its own category to set it apart as using playing cards. Additionally, categorizing game shows based on the equipment used in them is overcategorization. The Price Is Right uses or has used an ungodly number of props, including but certainly not limited to wheels, chips, shells, dice, bells, buzzers, clocks, golf clubs, puppets, yodeling mountaineers and Preparation H. I have no desire to see Category:Preparation H game shows any time soon nor do I find it at all helpful from an organizational standpoint to put 50 categories on TPIR based on every piece of equipment that may have found its way into one of its gaming segments. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The category is game show card games, not card game game shows! Obviously we are not "categorizing game shows based on the equipment". We are categorizing card games. In this case, card games used on game shows. Obviously there is no overcategorization in that since there is no other way to find this commonality.2005 (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that these are "card games" is faintly ludicrous. They are television shows (and bits of television shows). Otto4711 (talk) 04:01, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an entirely different point. If you want to question their categorization under card games at all, fine. if you want to afd/question whether they should have articles, fine. But the articles exist, and as such if they are called card games, then the categorization makes sense. 2005 (talk) 04:21, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's rather the point I was making, that these are not card games. They are game shows (or pieces of game shows) that involve cards. Otto4711 (talk) 14:48, 9 February 2008 (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:Heartland songs[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Heartland songs to Category:Heartland (country music band) songs

Nominator's rationale: Suggesting a rename to match the article name of the band Heartland (country music band). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 20:51, 4 February 2008 (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:Fictional pretty girls[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:23, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ~~Speedy~~ delete as trivial, POV, undefinable. Fayenatic (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, the category is definitely POV in its scope, and I don't think that the three girls within it are notable (note that one of those three is at AfD). Mimi Tachikawa is kind of cute, though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:17, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Ev (talk) 22:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-neutral POV.--十八 01:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per firm but fair nom. Cat:Fictional women rides again. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed! Presumably you refer to the head category:Fictional females - now quite well populated, and I'm glad we kept it. Doesn't need this one, though. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot we turned that into something! I meant its initial sad appearance. Johnbod (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Pretty girls" is non-defining for both real amd fictional women. Dimadick (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are clearly not supposed to categorize by a subjective term like pretty. Doczilla (talk) 09:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are exactly the kinds of categories we dont need. --Piemanmoo (talk) 04:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question: this is clear-cut and unanimous. What does it take to get a speedy? Is speedy deletion of categories no longer policy? - Fayenatic (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're confusing speedy deletion criteria with snowball conclusions to discussions. Lots of people agreeing to delete does not equal a "speedy". It can result in a premature termination of discussion using the snowball justification, but for whatever reason (my guess would be (a) because CFD gets less traffic than AFD; (b) there's less of an imperative to tackle problematic categories before 5 days are up than there is to tackle problematic articles, and (c) the leg-work of closing CFD chats relies on admins, fewer of whom patrol these skies than elsewhere) the snowball clause is rarely invoked. Bencherlite^Talk 14:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ah! Thank you. I wasn't actually thinking of the snowball clause; hadn't read that one before. Rather, I had expected one of the above experienced hands to close the discussion early and delete the category. However, now I understand that it does not meet any of the WP:CSD criteria, so I and have withdrawn the word "speedy" from the nomination. - Fayenatic (talk) 00:42, 10 February 2008 (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:WikiProject Transport in Scotland lists[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Transport in Scotland lists to Category:List-Class Scotland Transport articles

Nominator's rationale: This category shows the lists associated with WP:TIS and so can be assessed that way. Simply south (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2008 (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:Supercars[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 discussion was relisted on feb 11. Kbdank71 14:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: As a result of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Car Classifications this car classication is deprecated, and it was removed from article texts an infoboxes (e.g. here and her). Hence this category shouldn't exist either. 79.212.210.176 (talk) 17:13, 4 February 2008 (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:Articles with example pseudocode[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 discussion was keep. Kbdank71 14:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think this category is useful for readers. How likely is it that somebody wants to go through all articles with example pseudocode on Wikipedia? Furthermore, this has been discussed before at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 17#Category:Articles with example pidgincode where is was decided to delete the category for this reason. I know that this is technically a speedy, but I don't think it's proper to speedy a category that has existed for over a year. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 14:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. And definitely not a speedy procedure. The category is useful for readers because of the following reasons:

Author's of research papers and academic literature such as myself, as well as students in numerical computing and computer science, need numerous examples of pseudo-code from various academic traditions as a template and source of inspiration. (Wikipedia authors of articles including pseudo code also need this, but that is not an argument. The need among WP readers is a sufficient argument.)
Formal standards for pseudo code does not, and should not, exist. Instead one has to look into many examples to get a picture of the standard.
The same reasons as all other Articles with example code. If you delete this you should delete them all. The numerous number of such categories indicates the usefulness.
Independent persons has made several attempts during the years to form a category or list of articles with example pseudo code, as well as Wikipedia style guidelines for pseudo code, which proves the need.

Mange01 (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Articles with example pseudocode are still articles with example code, so this categorization does not hurt, and keeps articles with example pseudocode separate from articles with example code in languages that don't have a category of their own. GregorB (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2008 (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:Nations belonging to haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA)[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Apart from the strange terminology ("belonging to haplogroup XYZ"), for a nation to be in this category is in no respect defining. The criterium of 20% is quite arbitrary, and even with this low threshold this will always remain a category with only a few instances. Having this category does not add value; more detailed information is readily available in the article Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA). --Lambiam 10:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss together with the others in Category:Nations by haplogroups (Y-DNA). (Is the nomination to delete? If so I am inclined to agree.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 11:39, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and probably rename to Category:Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) nations - agree with nominator about the terminology (word "belonging" doesnt make sense), but the category itself is very helpful. Sasha l (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep and rename - per Sasha. Serebr (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These seem to be ethnic groups rather than nations; eg Ossetians. To categorise an ethnic group via some personal quality of its people (height, weight, intelligence, genetic make-up etc) is surely overcategorisation. Also Ossetians doesn't mention haplogroups and so it is difficult to justify the categorisation. A list would be ideal. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per roundhouse. These categories suggest that a nation is synonymous with its dominant ethnic group, which is not a fair assessment. The dominant haplogroup is also probably not defining for a nation. A list will be much better as it will allow more information to be given. LeSnail (talk) 15:50, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify the whole tree, for reasons given. Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another arbitrary threshold category, when are we going to have the guts to delete other genetically useless ones like the race/ethnicity ones that suffer the same ills? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2008 (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:Live Video Feed[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Pages with live video feeds doesn't need a category; unless there is a project that oversees them. Leo Laursen ( T ¦ C ) 09:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an article hiding as a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept rename as Category:Live video feeds. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 9 February 2008 (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:Users who doesn't tolerate harassment[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 discussion was Close to allow moving it to User CfD. Bduke (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one user in the category, not useful at all, since Wikipedia as a whole does not tolerate harrasment RogueNinja_talk 02:18, 4 February 2008 (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.