Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 8



Category:Computers and environmental issues

 * 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: No Consensus.  --  X damr  talk 20:49, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Computers and environmental issues to Category:Environmental issues with computers
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistency with related articles and more descriptive. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm not convinced that we need to break computers out in this area.  Category:Electronic waste seems like the better place.  Also in looking at the contents of this category, it appears to be a mix of waste disposal and design.  The designs affect computers, receivers, displays, phones and every other electronic device.  So I think I'm supporting some kind of upmerge, just not sure where or under what name. Vegaswikian (talk)
 * I am not suggesting "that we need to break computers out in this area". Almost all the articles in the category relate directly to computers and therefore the category is justified. Category:Electronic waste is a valid subcat. Also note that there are some computer specific design articles that are extremely relevant to this cat. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Electronic waste if this is kept should be the parent and I may well change that before this discussion closes. Can you explain why computers are any different then any of the items I mentioned above in terms of environmental issues?  My contention is that they are one in the same.  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see the tree as being 'Environmental issues' → 'Electronic waste' → 'Computer specific', although the last may be overkill. The environmental issues arise from the electronic part of the equipment, not its use. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge into several existing categories based on the actual contents of the articles. Once this splitting has occurred, then appropriate subcategories can be created.  Clearly display device articles are not restricted to computers as one example of the issues here.  If the closer agrees with this approach, leave me a message and I'll move the articles after the close. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:30, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Passenger equipment

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Passenger rail vehicles.  --  X damr  talk 20:51, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Passenger equipment to Category:Passenger equipment (railroad)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename and cleanup. Current title is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Support the idea, not the target - we should avoid parentheticals whenever an alternative exists. Category:Railroad passenger equipment works just as well. What are you suggesting by cleanup and what keeps the cleaned up articles in the Category:Rolling stock tree? Otto4711 (talk) 05:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm open on the target name. As to cleanup, Horizontal elevator may be out of place, but maybe not. Manual fare collection probably does not belong.  Crew car also seems a bit out of place.  So based on the resulting name we need to see which articles fit.  Vegaswikian (talk) 06:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support idea, but suggest . Railroad is only used in a minority of countries (albeit an important minority), so we tend to use as a basic form. Grutness...wha?  01:31, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Category:Passenger rail vehicles to match Category:Rail vehicles? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That would work as a far better title - iff this category is for vehicles only (I had assumed that "equipment" referred to something different, e.g., communication cord). Grutness...wha?  23:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is the intent of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Orthodontic Encyclopedia

 * 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.  --  X damr  talk 23:26, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * orthodontic encyclopedia


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Apparently someone's attempt, from 2006, to create a specialist encyclopedia within Wikipedia. Calton | Talk 17:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete – the appeal to orthodontists of the world was rousing but sadly ineffectual. Occuli (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's nothing to merge. The only article is already included in Category:Orthodontics. Jafeluv (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Defunct companies of Chicago, Illinois

 * 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 per nom.  --  X damr  talk 09:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Defunct companies of Chicago, Illinois to Category:Defunct companies based in Chicago, Illinois
 * Category:Defunct companies of Louisville, Kentucky to Category:Defunct companies based in Louisville, Kentucky
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To follow the name of the parent Category:Companies based in Chicago, Illinois. Since we are also starting to see these being created for cities and one state, we may also want to address the need for defunct company categories by city or state.  Vegaswikian (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and upmerge to Category:Defunct companies of the United States (or by-state subcategories) and Category:Companies based in (City). We simply don't need categories grouping defunct companies by individual city. By state might be valid, but please, for the love of all that's good and holy, not by individual city. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Chipmunk songs

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Chipmunk (rapper) songs.  --  X damr  talk 23:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Chipmunk songs to Category:Chipmunk (rapper) songs
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate and to match Chipmunk (rapper). I'm so unhip, I thought it was either for songs about chipmunks or songs by "Alvin" et al. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 08:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Didn't we have something like this some 5-7 weeks ago? Debresser (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, to disambiguate from different kinds of "chipmunk songs". Note, though, that the main article being at a disambiguated title doesn't automatically mean that the corresponding category needs to be disambiguated as well. Jafeluv (talk) 08:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Film sequels with different MPAA ratings than their predecessors

 * 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.  --  X damr  talk 23:30, 16 July 2009 (UTC)


 * film sequels with different mpaa ratings than their predecessors


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. (Wince.) We don't categorize films by MPAA rating or any other country's rating system, let alone this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete (and shudder) per nom. Good heavens. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:07, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and add to Most trivial names on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, trivial category. Cjc13 (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:05, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as overcategorization. Pretty unlikely to be useful to readers. Jafeluv (talk) 10:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:African American atheists and agnostics

 * 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.  Inappropriate to join two separate, though non-deist, strands of thought in this manner.  --  X damr  talk 21:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * african american atheists and agnostics


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar to this deleted category, this category is combining atheists and agnostics. Doing so is not appropriate and misleading since there is a significant difference between atheists and agnostics. I suppose the category could be divided by hand into agnostics and atheists, but at the same time I'm not clear on why "African-American atheists" and/or "African-American agnostics" would be a non-trivial intersection. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Given the clear history of religious activities by African Americans, atheists and agnostics in that community are a defining characteristic, and the argument that this is a "trivial intersection" comes off as a poor rationale for deletion. This is becoming like the old The Far Side cartoon, where a veterinary student is reviewing a book on equine medicine in which the cure of every ailment, from broken leg to bad breath, is "shoot the horse". While the cartoon was genuinely humorous, and harmless to all but the horse, the abuse of this approach at CfD only makes Wikipedia and its readers worse off. At CfD, there is no problem too trivial too "solve", as disruptively as possible, by deleting the category under discussion, and we are still dealing from the disruptive deletions of entire category structures in which our nominator refused to consider solutions to solve problems without jumping to "shoot the horse" as the cure all solution for any and all perceived category problems. If there was some genuine interest in dealing with a real problem, the appropriate solution would have been to split the category into two. However, the claim that this pairing is "misleading" is misleading itself. We have no problem lumping all lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people into the catchall LGBT. Ignoring the exact details and particulars of each of these sexual preferences, no one could possibly argue that they are all the same, yet we are able to lump them together in hundreds of categories, and as gay community points out there are even finer subdivisions that make any one of these categories questionable under the "misleading" standard our nominator proposes. It's time that we looked at CfD as a means to actually "discuss" issues and make the category system a more effective means of navigation, rather than being abused as a tool to delete categories because some people just don't like them. Alansohn (talk) 19:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This favorite LGBT argument of yours would probably hold up better if LGBT articles weren't subdivided into gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender sub-categories. Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue I raise is that there are just short of 1,000 LGBT categories that would appear to be improper under the nominator's rationalization for deletion. Where are Category:Lesbian-related television episodes, Category:Gay-related television episodes, Category:Bisexual-related television episodes and Category:Transgender-related television episodes? Alansohn (talk) 20:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:LGBT African Americans would seem apropos – I see no subcats. Occuli (talk) 21:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LGBT categories are only bunched together when there aren't actually enough articles to justify separate categories for each individual group — and they always get subdivided as soon as the number of entries finally warrants that. So it's not an example of anything you'd like to make it an example of — it's just a temporary "this isn't the ideal, but in the meantime it's better than having nothing at all" shortcut for cases where the number of entries can't yet support four distinct categories. Bearcat (talk) 22:44, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Alansohn, CfD would probably be enjoyed by everyone a lot more and be more productive to boot if you would stop making negative comments about specific users, their approaches to WP in general, and their past actions. A good portion of your comment could have been eliminated as irrelevant to the matter at hand. I think most everyone understands you hate me, probably some other editors that we don't need to name, and also the way the entire CfD process currently works. We get it. Now you need to "get" that most everyone is tired about hearing about it in forums like this, where it doesn't belong. Take stuff like that elsewhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't hate anyone, and your good faith would be helpful here, but I do despise a dysfunctional process. CfD would be a good deal more enjoyable if there was a shred of concern for making the category system a more effective means of navigating through similar articles. If one day the regular nominators and closing admins here would start discussions aimed at improving categories instead of assuming that the only possible conclusion is to "shoot the horse" there might be some joy here. I would shout "hallelujah" from the rooftop if there were some small measure of consistency and intellectual honesty in deciding which categories are kept and which are deleted. I would be elated to see a genuine effort to expand CfD participation to the broadest possible audience. If there was an iota of consideration for such concerns, there is a tremendous amount that could be accomplished in making Wikipedia better. Or we could just keep on doing what we've always been doing. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase what I'm trying to get across. (I was using "hate" colloquially, as in you "hate" (strongly disagree with) my approach.) You obviously disagree with me (and some other editors) about what is "best" or "good" for WP and CfD. There is no neutral "right" and "wrong" re: these issues. That's fine. But I'm explicitly asking you to take those concerns and debates about the dysfunctional process elsewhere (possibly to a broader discussion forum, like Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion). That's where they belong, not here. Do not repeatedly bring them up in specific CfDs and criticise the general approach of other editors in specific CfDs. Restrain yourself and channel the discussion to where it belongs. Thank you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You can pretty much take the idea that CFD doesn't have "a shred of concern for making the category system a more effective means of navigating through similar articles" and stuff it in the gopher hole of your choice. Just because people don't agree with your personal opinion about the utility of a particular category des not mean that they don't care about such things — it merely means that they have a different opinion about how that goal is best served. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:American atheists or Category:American agnostics as appropriate. There is no need to form every conceivable intersection/union of categories and the only other category combining the 2 non-deist strands seems to be Category:Former atheists and agnostics. Occuli (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per both arguments of nominator. Of course while taking care of the articles as per the previous editor. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per Occuli; no need to multiple categorize by race, nationality, and religion (or absence thereof). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Mario Universe games

 * 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: No Consensus.  --  X damr  talk 21:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * mario universe games


 * Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant with and its subcats. --EEMIV (talk) 02:19, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – how is it redundant? Picking Donkey Kong Barrel Blast at random, this is in no other Mario category. Wario World is another. So delete is not an option; merge somewhere might be feasible. Occuli (talk) 08:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Donkey Kong and Mario were introduced in the same game, weren't they? Perhaps then the Donkey Kong cat should be added to the Mario Bros. games cat -- or, since Mario doesn't appear in that cited game, it may be mis-catted in this big redundant one. --EEMIV (talk) 13:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Make parent It seems to me that this category should be the parent category with all the subcats (Mario Bros. games, Mario Kart games, Donkey Kong games, etc.) as child categories. There should be no individual articles in this category, unless they don't fit in any of those already existing subcategories. --Wolfer68 (talk) 16:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, we already have a parent category with all the subcats. It's called Category:Mario. Magiciandude (talk) 18:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

If you don't agree that the Wario Ware games and Donkey Kong games are in the same universe as Mario, please backup your answer. --Trioculus1 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, I think parent would be fine. Plus that Category:Mario isn't what this is. Plus this category doesn't violate anything and isn't made up as all Donkey Kong, Mario, Wario and Yoshi are all in one universe.


 * Keep, make parent, this category is relevant and doesn't violate anything. If this was to be put as a sub category than that's fine. --Trioculus1 (talk) 22:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment That's still no reason to have a redundant category if we already have one. Also, Category:Mario Bros. games, has links to Wario, Yoshi, and Donkey Kong games. I never said they weren't part of it. Magiciandude (talk) 03:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep I had a look at that Mario Bros. category and there is nothing there mentioning Donkey Kong, Wario and Yoshi games. --Victory93 (talk) 05:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and make a parent as suggested. There are many Mario Universe games that are not Mario Bros. games. &mdash; brighterorange  (talk) 12:56, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Why is "Universe" capitalized? I am not aware of "Mario Universe" being a proper noun, or even an official term. Dancter (talk) 22:43, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Mario Universe games to Category:Mario-universe games, keep as parent of Category:Mario Bros. games, etc.
 * Rename Category:Mario to Category:Mario-universe, keep as parent of Category:Mario-universe games, etc.
 * Rename Category:Mario characters to Category:Mario-universe characters, keep as parent of Category:Donkey Kong characters User talk:CarlaudeUser talk:Carlaude 13:09, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Hyphenation is only necessary for compound modifiers; it should be Category:Mario universe, not Category:Mario-universe. --EEMIV (talk) 13:21, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Attapu Province

 * 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 Category:Attapu Province to Category:Attapeu Province and Category:Cities, towns and villages in Attopu Province to Category:Cities, towns and villages in Attapeu Province.  Given its use in Template:Provinces of Laos I have selected 'Attapeu' for the sake of consistency.  --  X damr  talk 21:03, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Attapu Province to Category:Attopu Province
 * Nominator's rationale: Two categories representing the same Attopu Province. Chanheigeorge (talk) 01:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Attapeu Province per the name actually used in Attopu Province and Provinces of Laos. Unless there is a reason to not use the name actually used in the article.  It looks like Attopu, Attapu or Attapeu could be used here, so the question is, which is the primary?  For me, the actual contents of the article are the determining factor. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment – it was once at Attapeu Province. We could alternatively change the article by switching 2 words, and change the template so 'Attopu' is used consistently. (See also Attopu.) Occuli (talk) 08:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will support whatever we can show is the correct name. But in the end, the article text, the template and the category should all use the same name. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There's also Category:Cities, towns and villages in Attopu Province. Occuli (talk) 20:29, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I support consistency. Debresser (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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:Vietnamese expatriates in Canada

 * 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, fits in with existing structure of Category:Expatriates in Canada.  --  X damr  talk 21:28, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Suggest merging Category:Vietnamese expatriates in Canada to Category:Vietnamese immigrants to Canada
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. only 1 article in this category when it has almost identical meaning to the larger populated category of Vietnamese immigrants. LibStar (talk) 00:06, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The one article is wrongly placed in 'expatriates' as she is described as an immigrant to Canada in 1988 in the article. Also immigrants are not expatriates so Category:Vietnamese expatriates in Canada is not a parent cat to Category:Vietnamese immigrants to Canada. Occuli (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as they are two different things and both have established trees. All immigrants were expatriates before or while awaiting receiving immigrant status (permanent residency or better), so keep as a parent cat.  (I relinked to one article to Vietnamese immigrants to Canada.) Mayumashu (talk) 09:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.