Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 31 September 2 >

September 1[edit]

Category:CH network shows[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The "CH network" was a short-lived thing which existed only from 2001 to 2005, with both of its two member stations having vastly longer histories as either independent stations or as affiliates of other networks instead. Just three of the shows categorized here aired on either station during the "CH network" era, and even one of those is up for prod as being virtually unsourceable -- all of the other eight originated on one of the member stations, CHCH-DT, during its time as an unaffiliated independent station. Although CHCH was somewhat prominent as a syndicator, thereby getting more of its original programs over WP:NMEDIA and WP:GNG than a typical independent station normally would because they had more than just local distribution, it doesn't need its own dedicated "individual television station shows" category as the context of their notability is already covered by Category:First-run syndicated television programs in Canada -- but since the programs aired either before or after the "CH network" era, none of them are appropriately defined by the fact that their originating station briefly had a "CH network" affiliation at a different time than when they were airing. Without them, however, it's a two-item WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 1 September 2016 (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.

Beverage[edit]

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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:50, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming subcategories of Category:Drinks to use 'drink' rather than 'beverage'.
List of other beverage companies
Nominator's rationale: The recent cfd on 19 Aug showed a clear preference for 'drink' over 'beverage'. The article is at Drink and the parent category at Category:Drinks; moreover there is Category:Food and drink companies. The rationale is slightly different as in this nom 'beverage' is an adjective. Oculi (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comments (beverage)[edit]
  • Support as we are changing usage on Wikipedia from beverage to drink. SilkTork ✔Tea time 19:35, 8 September 2016 (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 about time[edit]

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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a bad idea and should be abandoned before it wastes any more 'time'. Most of these are nothing to do with time. 'Albums with songs about XXX' is an even worse idea. Oculi (talk) 20:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, all of the titles has to do with time.
Nominator's rationale @Oculi: is opinion, and reason for nomination. Nominator's seemed strong bias against this type of category perhaps makes them recused. Nominator does not specify why this is waste of time, but states that themselves feel this is a bad idea and waste. It is suggested that nominator does not spend time themselves on this topic. The nominator perhaps thinks it is a impossible task to categorize songs this way, because there could be, as in literature when interpretation is done left room for doubt. Nominator perhaps thinks the practice of identifying topics is as a whole a wasteful practice. And we should abandon to identify categories in literature as a whole. There is no reason for Nominator to use said category. But the category can indeed be helpful for traversing songs in specified topic. But to guarantee satisfaction for the reader and interpreter for their notion of category (time) is not possible. In sense of strictness when creating a category, these categories still are in need of work. As of now they are functioning in helping the creation of such a stricter category. As such Nominator's act of nominating is policy against any such category to be worked--Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ 21:45, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The categorisation is your opinion, unless you can provide a clear WP:RS, at each of those articles, that claims the album "its about time". Martinevans123 (talk) 21:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On the page you refer WP:RS it is stated it is best treated with common sense,--Mysteriumen•♪Ⓜ 22:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mysteriumen (talk • contribs)
You've provided no sources whatsoever. What you see as "common sense" may not correspond to what anyone else sees as "common sense". You are wasting not only your own time, but the time of all those who will have to clean up after you. Please stop, at least until this discussion has reached a conclusion. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Articles are categorised by defining characteristics. I would doubt if 'time' is ever a defining characteristic of a song. As for albums, having a song about XXX will not be defining of the album. Oculi (talk) 22:32, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There's a big difference between a song having a time-related word in its title and the song being about time per se in a WP:DEFINING way. "Ruby Tuesday", for example, is about a woman, and does not become "about time" just because the woman's name has the word "Tuesday" in it; "Yesterday" is about looking back over past events with a mix of regret and nostalgia for a simpler period of your life, not about the day before today in any remotely literal way. And even if a song can be reliably sourced as being about some specific theme or other, that song's theme definitely does not reify into a defining characteristic of the album it happens to be on. This really is a terrible and badly conceived idea that really needs to go away. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A scheme of "albums with songs about [X]" is so unwieldy and trivial as to be impossible. Think about how many albums have a song about love. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers all the problems of the "X about Y" type categories, how much about Y must each X be? and what reliable sources tell us that it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Just not thought through. Many of the songs in this cat are not "about" time, they merely reference a measure or period in time. Is My Generation about time just because it has the word "generation" in it"? Not for me.--Egghead06 (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the nom and all the above. I came across this as a member of WP:TIME and my immediate reaction was: "Well, what a waste of time" (and space). More seriously, it has little relevance to time as such. My Generation, for example, is not about time but about people of a certain age. The idea is unsound and hasn't been thought through. It adds no value at all. BoJó | talk UTC 14:19, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That a song makes some mention to time in some way does not make that the subject of the song. This is a flaw in a lot of "songs about x" categories. Very few are worth having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's about time all these songs about categories were deleted. Very rarely actually referenced in the article and as the examples pointed out above, so often populated by whim rather than commonsense. Talking of commonsense, none can be associated with the album with songs about time category. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2016 (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:Connected contributors[edit]

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: renamed by author. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misleading category name, as this is not used to categorize the connected contributors themselves, but rather articles with them. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:48, 1 September 2016 (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:Independent artists[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category which is not substantively WP:DEFINING of its contents. Firstly, out of all the thousands upon thousands of musicians who could theoretically be added here, in reality a grand total of just 16 artists actually have been. Secondly, the inclusion criteria are unclear: would this refer exclusively to musicians who self-release on their own label or Bandcamp or CDBaby or whatever, or would it be inclusive of musicians who were signed to small labels like Sub Pop or Arts & Crafts or Saddle Creek or Kill Rock Stars instead of to the big Multinational Majors? And thirdly, the music industry is literally overflowing with musicians who have been both a "major label" act and an "independent" act at different times in their careers -- so at its most extreme, this category could theoretically contain somewhere between 50 and 75 per cent of all musicians who have Wikipedia articles at all. Which means it's little-used, poorly defined and potentially unmaintainable, which is three reasons why it shouldn't exist. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 1 September 2016 (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:Northern South America[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent page was deleted as WP:NOR Prevan (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but to what end? This isn't deleting articles that span the whole region, it's just regrouping the country categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Peter and because a nomination like this really should link to the relevant AFD. DexDor (talk) 22:22, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the rationale to keep actually applies to keeping the grandchild Category:Flora of South America. Except for flora, Northern South America is not a "general" geographic concept. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:35, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it matter that it's not a "general" geographic concept? It's a major unit in the WGSRPD, at the same level as Malesia or Papuasia, for example. (By the way, the category "Flora of South America" is mis-named; it refers to the WGSRPD's "Southern America" which is significantly different.) Peter coxhead (talk) 05:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It matters because it wouldn't be appropriate to put entire countries in this category while these countries are not commonly known to be countries of Northern South America. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My comments related to the proposer's rationale, viz. that the category should be deleted because the article was. I completely reject this view; the article might have needed improvement, but should not have been deleted – there should be an article on all the WGSRPD levels 1 and 2. I take no view on other reasons for deletion. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Marcocapelle makes a good point. Oculi (talk) 18:50, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete South America is not so large that we need to diffuse the country subcategories. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete If Northern South America is a classification used for biota, those biota categories can be directly in those for South America, along with those for other parts of the continent. This is an unnecessary category level. I will be voting the other way on the subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2016 (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:Flora of northern South America[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:40, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent page was deleted as WP:NOR Prevan (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are right. Category:Biota of northern South America should also survive, as a subcategory of a general one for South America. I voted above to delete Category:Northern South America, and that is the unnecessary parent that I was referring to. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2016 (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:Wikipedians interested in Northern South America[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:52, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent page was deleted as WP:NOR Prevan (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2016 (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:Wikipedia articles in need of updating from Spetember 2016[edit]

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: speedied. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word September is misspelt. Thank you. Kndimov (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CFD is for categories which require discussion about their keepability or deletability, not for straightforward cases which can just be speedied as simple error — and, in fact, you tagged the nominee with the speedy template instead of the CFD template, meaning this wouldn't last seven days anyway since the speedy crew could disappear it literally any time somebody gets to it and would never know this discussion existed. I'm closing this and speedying it. Bearcat (talk) 15:18, 1 September 2016 (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:Genetic disease[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAP and the parent Category:Diseases and disorders combines both words. Brandmeistertalk 10:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. There's no clear distinction between a "disease" and a "disorder" in this context, which is why the parent category combines both words into a single tree instead of being subcatted to separate diseases from disorders. Target category should probably be renamed to Category:Genetic diseases and disorders to better match its parent, however. (And even if there were a solid basis for separate categories to be kept, the nominee would still have to be renamed "Genetic diseases" anyway, since categories are declared in the plural form and not the singular.) Bearcat (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2016 (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:Lilium in culture[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category that's serving as a curious and inappropriate mix of things that are lilies, things that are merely artistic or heraldic representations of lilies, disambiguation pages which don't belong in article categories, and things that aren't in any substantive way about lilies but merely happen to be named "lily" or "lilies". So what we have, ultimately, is a category with poorly defined inclusion criteria, and lapsing in some respects toward WP:OCAT by shared name. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – even the title is a curious mix. 'Lilies in culture' would be more readily comprehensible. Oculi (talk) 23:29, 6 September 2016 (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/2016_September_1&oldid=1077607521"