Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 21

< March 20	March 22 >

March 21

Category:Songs written by Tim Wheeler

Category:Songs written by Tim Wheeler - Template:Lc1

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]

Keep – the writer is a defining characteristic of a song (as is the recording artist). Moreover Category:Songs written by Tim Wheeler is in Category:Songs by songwriter whereas Category:Ash songs is not. We don't know what TW and Ash will do in future anyway - at present Category:Songs written by Tim Wheeler is a subcat of Category:Ash songs but this might change. Occuli (talk) 19:09, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli's exemplary explanation. There is a significant difference between recording and writing a song, and, it should also be pointed out that Ash do not write the songs, but one or two of the members of the band do. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a defining characteristic of these songs. Alansohn (talk) 23:56, 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]

Category:Yaroslavl State Medical Academy

Category:Yaroslavl State Medical Academy - Template:Lc1

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]

Delete – but allow recreation in due course if nec. Occuli (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:931 BC disestablishments

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]

Rename, but not 9th century - it's 10th century. --Regnator (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ooops! you are quite right. I have corrected the nomination, and since Category:10th-century BC disestablishments already exists, I have relabelled it as a merger rather than a renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – and Category:1st-millennium BC disestablishments is a rather magnificent structure for a handful of articles. Occuli (talk) 17:00, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- I am far from convinced of the merits of establishment and disestablishment categories. Certainly at such remote dates (and even 10th-century AD), categories dealing with long periods (such as a century) should be quite adequate. I therefore hope this is a sample nomination to be followed by a much wider one in due course. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Goddess of Democracy

Category:Goddess of Democracy - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:Single-player games that require a constant internet connection

Category:Single-player games that require a constant internet connection - Template:Lc1

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 Characters in British novels of the 20th century? What about 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 Ubisoft that is using this form of 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 before, and I guess I can't agree with it. In my opinion it's purely an official excuse to look the other way. If we have the power to correct things but only correct one and sweep the others under the rug we are being highly biased to say the least. And also, if we did correct things as we should, there would be no need for 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]

Category:Industrial articles needing attention

Category:Industrial articles needing attention - Template:Lc1

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]

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]

Category:Perennials of Ontario

Category:Perennials of Ontario - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:Songs with lyrics by Bobby Troup

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]

Category:Songs with music by Mylène Farmer

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]

Category:Seminaries and theological colleges in Myanmar

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]

Support for Seminaries, but Rename Category:Christian college in Burma to Category:Christian colleges in Burma. Two of the colleges are providing non-theological courses, so that the target is not appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Round churches in England

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]

Keep -- Round churches are few in number and thus unnusual. They thus constitute a legitimate category. There may be other architectural features that could provide a legitimate category, but they are probably relatively few in number, since most features will be too common to provide a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Precisely because of limited scope it's far better defined and manageable. "Round buildings" [not limited to churches] might be seen as an unnecessary sub of Category:Rotundas but the latter, in addition to true "round buildings" also lists just "big domes" like the United States Capitol rotunda and Palladian villas which actually have square floorplans. NVO (talk) 19:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are more in England, and categories could be added for other countries. There are also a few other "plan-types", mostly more ancient, that could usefully be added - see Cross-in-square, triconch etc. Generally our "categorization by architecture" schemes are extremely rudimentary, & have a long way to go. Johnbod (talk) 12:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fruits of Florida

Category:Fruits of Florida - Template:Lc1

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]

Category:Bus routes in Cardiff

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]

Notifications. WikiProject Cardiff has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support I intend to create articles for all of Cardiff Bus's routes over the coming months which would greatly expand this category. However, it would be a good idea to include infrastructure. Welshleprechaun (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category and articles -- Unlike train routes which cannot easily be varied, because the permanent way cannot easily be altered, bus routes can be and frequently are altered, so that a WP article on a bus route will need to be regularly maintained. The right place for information on bus routes is on the bus operator or Transport Executive website, becasue they will pay some one to maintain theri own site. Articles on bus routes have frequently been deleted in the past. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The articles are not being discussed here, just the category name. Besides there are articles on hundreds of other bus routes so why should these be an exception? Welshleprechaun (talk) 13:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities of Turkey on River

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]

Comment - but some of these are not coastal. The format in Category:River settlements appears to be by subcats of form 'Settlements on Foo River'. Occuli (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to Category:Cities of Turkey on rivers, which seems gramatically to reflect the intention of the creator. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment historically, most towns and cities were built either on the coast or on a river. "Cities on rivers" is not quite as tautological as "cities with buildings", but it's still going to be a huge category tree if we go down that route. Is it really a good idea to do this, when it will add an extra category to the majority of cities around the world? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]