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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I understand the idea here, but calling an open access journal "predatory" is definitely not a positive appellation, and could be seen as a borderline attack. Those journals that are called "predatory" normally contest such accusations. I think this would be too controversial an appellation to have a category for it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. Sounds very POV to me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Too subjective and likely to leave us open to legal issues. In an article, we can say "Beall accused this journal of being predatory, and here's why". With this category, we can only say that Wikipedia considers the journal predatory. That's too unsubtle for an issue like this. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too problematic as explained by David Epstein. Impossible to establish clear inclusion criteria. --Randykitty (talk) 08:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move articles currently categorized to Category:Open access journals. This is an opinion-based, allegation-based categorization rather than a factual categorization. Peacock (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But none of the articles currently in the category is about a journal. They are all about publishers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't recognize that distinction. Just delete the cat then. Peacock (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia cannot make such judgements in article space. Talk pages and Wikiprojects are another matter. Abductive (reasoning) 15:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to List of open access journals characterized as predatory List of open access publishers characterized as predatory in line with List of topics characterized as pseudoscience and similar. Journals like this are getting a lot of press, and as the recent front page NYT article indicates, there are a lot of reliable sources for this. I'll work on putting together Predatory open access journal in the next few days unless someone beats me to it. a13ean (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That being said, very few of these journals are notable, but there are a few that seem to have survived past AfDs. a13ean(talk) 16:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DGG's argument is a good one, and I nearly reversed my answer above based on it. However, looking at the three articles currently in the category, they all have additional secondary sources to support a cat along these lines. Inclusion in Beall's list is not sufficient to merit inclusion in such a category, but the addition of secondary RS makes a stronger case than the opinion of a single academic librarian. a13ean (talk) 20:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve information as a list, as is, as a sub-category of another category, or by renaming existing category. The reason is that the term, or rather the concept, of a "so-called journal whose standards are well below professional, but who appears to be a journal at first glance" is clearly notable enough for an article and a concise list, either here or off-wiki, that WP:RS can point to has value to the project. I would be okay with such a list being housed in Wikipedia: space rather than article space. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Preserve, though with a name change if this is considered necessary. Use of the category requires a judgment by editors, but that's normal, many categories require judgments, and if there's disagreement then consensus can be sought in the usual way. I appreciate the concerns expressed here, but if we keep in mind that cats are for navigation purposes, then there is value in enabling readers who arrive at one of these articles to find others as well. Substantively, these are not "Open-access journals" (or "Open-access journal publishers" -- not much hinges on that difference) akin to the legitimate ones, and they shouldn't simply be lumped together with journals/publishers for which there are no concerns about legitimacy. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see too much that needs to be "preserved" here, it's not like there's a lot of information in this category that would be lost if it is deleted. I think it's a can of worms. For example, it includes Bentham Science Publishers. However, it is my understanding that although there are concerns about the journals published by "Bentham Open" (their OA imprint), the company also publishes respectable subscription-based journals (I think we have articles on several of them). So throwing this whole company in a category like this doubtful at best. This is an issue that can be discussed in the article (which we currently don't do, by the way), but that can hardly be done in a category. As for a list: I don't see any reason why WP should copy Beall's list. He does a good job of maintaining it, so we can simply use it as a reference when discussing these issues in an article on a publisher or journal. --Randykitty (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is basically giving one group of people a forum to attack other people. It is clearly a pejorative, and considering that it takes multiple pages of internet content for the person so sdvocating to explain the complex criteria used to give this pejorative designation, I see no reason why we should act as if this person is the ultimate authority on the matter. We generally avoid pejorative titles, especially when they advance a specific group. We do not have Category:Hate groups and then slavishly follow the SPLC's designation of such, complete with maps to facilitate the next shooting of employees of a "hate" group. We do not categorize based on editors opinions, we categorize based on reliable sources. This category is advancing as the established truth the conetention of just one individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but do not merge. The categorization is based on a personal opinion, a fairly widely accepted personal opinion, but one that is sometimes disputed in good faith. I'm relying now upon my own analysis, which agrees with that of Randykitty: I consider that the list ranges from the relatively respectable to the utterly non-existent. The title is therefore not adequately objective, nor helpful to the reader. Perhaps at some point in will be possible to do this in a better fashion. I would not merge, because not all the entities listed on Beall's List actually are journals, or journal publishers--some merely pretend to. Titles such as "characterised as " are basically either his opinion, or ours. I could construct a list,--perhaps we would get a consensus which ones belong there, but doing so is not an appropriate function of Wikipedia . DGG ( talk ) 00:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the category & upmerge the journals - Identifying the journals and/or their publishers as "predatory" is a judgment call involving a lot of factors, a lot of opinion, and it can change over time -- in short, it is not the sort of attribute that's appropriate for categories. It would be like a subcategory of "abusive managers" or "rapacious corporations". It's also probably not the sort of list that Wikipedia can reasonably maintain, as it involves a lot of original research to create the determination of whether a journal is "predatory". So simply copying Beall's list would probably be a WP:COPYVIO (on the selection criteria for the list) and a bad idea besides, since maintaining its currency would be a maintenance nightmare. Replicating the list would be impossible due to the original research problem and the fact that there is only one such list -- so it's not like anyone could pull together multiple sources to describe a journal as such. .... Which is yet another reason why inclusion in a category cannot be justified, as there is just one single source describing a journal as "predatory", and it's not a peer-reviewed source. (But by the way: Jeffrey Beall and/or his list ought to have entries in Wikipedia by now. There's been a lot of independent attention to the litigation and threats he has received for his work.) --Lquilter (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom (without keeping redirect). "Predatory" is perjorative and POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment As for merging this cat: first, it only ever contained publishers, not journals and those entries would not be appropriate in the cat "Open access journals". Second, this cat is currently emtpy, the three original entries subsequently having been removed. --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category should never be populated. Do not redirect it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete The category has been empty for several weeks; this discussion appears to be the only obstacle to its removal. There is nothing directly related on any of the Talk pages of the three former members mentioned above. BTW Predatory open access publishing is itself the subject of a merge discussion.—Odysseus1479 06:36, 29 May 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Obsolete and unnecessary tier of categorisation. The only content are coalfields which generally cover a far wider geographical area. The various articles on coalfields can quite happily sit in Category:Coal mining in Wales (where no doubt they previous were). Sionk (talk) 22:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Are the categories capable of being populated? Well, for a start, there are 43 coalmines listed at Category:Coal mines in Wales which would quite happily fit into these categories, and a fair few other articles dotted around the place, including articles on pit disasters. Coal mining was the major industry of most of these areas for many years. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that it is also difficult to tell which unitary authority the mine locations are in. Almost all closed well before the new authority boundaries were drawn up (1996). The old county of Carmarthenshire is maybe an exception (2 mines here). Sionk (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is categorization at too fine a level. South Wales Coalfield is in 11 of these categories, many of which it is the only article in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all back to Category:Coal mining in Wales. If we wanted a split at all it should be by coalfield. The South Wales Coalfield stretches from Gwent to Pembrokshire. North Wales has a colafield in Clwyd with an outlier in Anglesey. Splitting it by the present lcoal authorities, which did not exist when most of the mining took place, is going too far. We might conceivably split south Wales between the post-1974 counties of Dyfed, West Glamorgan, Glamorgan, and Gwent, but only if the number of articles was enough to warrnat such a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2013 (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.
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 categories have remained empty).Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not aware of coalmining taking place in these areas. The South Wales Coalfield isn't in Cardiff or the Vale of Glamorgan, but in the South Wales Valleys to the north. Sionk (talk) 21:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article at South Wales Coalfield states "The South Wales Coalfield extends across parts of the unitary authorities of Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, Swansea, Neath Port Talbot, Bridgend, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Vale of Glamorgan, Merthyr Tydfil, Cardiff, Caerphilly, Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen and Powys," which suggests that you are wrong. However, I admit I was a little surprised at the inclusion of the two, and I'm not too bothered if the two categories are deleted. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The description was unsourced and inaccurate. There is no evidence of coalmining of any note in these two areas. Sionk (talk) 05:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it didn't take me long to find South Cambria Colliery, which was in Cardiff, and is linked from the article at South Wales Coalfield. I agree on Vale of Glamorgan though, and can't find anything in that area (there's one not far from the northern border, but it's definitely in Rhondda Cynon Taf (I haven't checked all the East Glamorgan list on that website though, but the map gives no indication there is anything else). Skinsmoke (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You've linked to a colliery in Risca. Even so, there's no Wikipedia article about the South Cambria Colliery so no reason for the category. Stick to what you know! Sionk (talk) 16:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for that. A quirk of the webpage that I hadn't noticed. You have to select SouthCambrianPentyrch under East Glamorgan on the menu to the left of the page. And there's no need to get stroppy! Your argument was that there is no evidence of coalmining in Cardiff, not that Wikipedia doesn't have an article on it. Skinsmoke (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the South Wales Coalfield was in these places, it would not be enough. The fact of the matter is with under 50 coalfields in Wales, it makes no sense to split the category more finely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as empty. If we need a layer below Wales, it should be the South Wales Coalfield, and if we need to split that it should be Gwent, Glamorgan, etc, not the present unitary councils. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 13 April 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale To start off with, this is labeling real people as having been primarily known for appearing in "literature", yet elsewhere we use literature as a term to describe certain forms of written fiction, and "literary characters" is assumed to mean "fictitious". Beyond that, this is not taking a global view of anything, it mentions the 18th-century, specifically 1660-1800, which is a British historical paradigm, controlled by events in Britain in 1660, and thus ignores French, German etc. literature. This might be acceptable in an article, but is just horrendous with a broadly named category. Anyway, the most useful thing in the category is its two paragraph lead, so we should articalize it. The current system labels readl people in a pejorative way that almost suggests they fictional, when in fact they are real people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per JPL. This category is a mess - it's about a very specific time period, with rather unclear criteria for membership (does it just mean you were satirized by some writer during some particular time period)? An article, with links out to examples/a table of names would be a better idea than this category. Also, we should not mix fictional and real people in categories - and should not do so in a list either.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I would like to see an article about this concept prior to categorizing biographical articles this way. If it means what I think it means, I definitely don't we should categorize people by this factoid. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:06, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure anyone is sure what it means. Susanna Centlivre is in this category. We have a very long article on her, although it has lots of uncited claims. Near the end we find "For those reasons, she was lampooned as having a supposedly mannish appearance (among other faults), most famously by Alexander Pope in several pieces.[citation needed] Regardless of her peers’ opinions, her plays continued to be performed for over 150 years after her death.[citation needed]" which seems to be all that supports this categorization. It really seems to be "these people were satarized, and we will act as if this is their claim to fame, even if they were top rate playwrights on their own." What next Category:People satarized by Saturday-Night Live?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- My initial reaction with that the category should be renamed to "Fictional dunces", using the ordinary (non-PC) maining of a stupid person - perhaps a person with learning difficulties. However the content seems to relate to people satirised in The Dunciad. WE have a very long headnote for the category, which makes clear what the difficulty is. Category:People satirised in The Dunciad might be a valid category. Accordingly, Rename and purge. If this is actually about a series of literary works, we would need one category for each work. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The current title is a tautology. The category talk page shows the originator's rationale. If the title I propose is not the final one, that is fine, but a better one than the one we have today is required. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note please there is a subcategory which is also a parent category which will require similar treatment Category:United States federal computer law legislation, and the parent/child circular thing requires resolution. I would have added this to my proposal but I confess to becoming lost in an ever decreasing set of circles. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator. My note on creation of this category read, "I realize that "Computer law legislation" seems rather redundant. But I'm trying to capture statutes typically described within the field of "computer law". "Computer legislation" or "Computer statutes" would not seem to capture the right sets of statutes. --Lquilter (talk) 20:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)" "Computer laws and statutes" probably does the trick. Part of the problem with naming the category is that the field of computer law is itself rather absurdly vague: Any statute relating somehow to computers gets tossed in. For what it's worth, the discipline is called "computer law". Glad it was brought to CFD -- maybe someone will have a clever idea about this. --Lquilter (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Computing legislation per suggestions below. "Computing" is much better than "computer", since it relates to the activity of computing rather than, say, manufacturing standards for computers. --Lquilter (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is not that simple. Not all legislative instruments are 'laws' Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
e.g.., legislation includes bills (introduced legislation) --Lquilter (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Information technology law, per Legal aspects of computing. "Computing legislation" and "computer law" seem to be much less frequently used, especially since they refer to computers (e.g. the devices), instead of the thing it's about (e.g information technology). The American bar association has a section on Information technology legislation [1]. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The category under discussion is a subcat of Category:Computer law. For the sake of consistency renaming to Information technology law, requires a similar change to the parent name as well. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Computer law" is definitely the more-common name in the field for a while; people offer & take classes on "computer law". Other terms -- "cyberlaw", "information technology law", "Internet law" -- also have currency. But it's my sense that "computer law" is the most common and best recognized. --Lquilter (talk) 17:39, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment If you read this, you can see that the organization which brings people together was originally called "Computer Law Association", but they've since rebranded themselves as the International Technology Law Association. There's even a whole wiki devoted to the subject, called (of course): http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/The_IT_Law_Wiki - the IT law wiki. The argument about offering classes on "Computer law" doesn't hold - there are lots of schools offering classes on "Information technology law" as well. We should retain "computer law" as a redirect, but "Information technology law" is a much more current term IMHO. From here: [2]: "The term is a successor to the term computer law, which was used to describe the field for its first 40 years." Let's be up to date!--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that the folks who call it "IT law" like that term better (as is demonstrated by the ITlaw wiki cite you provided), but as a practitioner in the field, I can attest that all the terms have currency. The IT Law Assn is not "the" association; I've never even heard of them. From their website they appear to be in the business basically of providing CLEs, like many other lawyer-organizations The g-hits show "computer law" with 488k; "information technology law" with 294k; "cyberlaw" with 700k+. --Lquilter (talk) 19:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support revised nom -- We may need sister categories for other aspects of IT. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename somehow. This may require a cleanup of the current category contents, since some of the articles not even mention computer. So without doing a cleanup, what is the category suppose to have as its contents? I don't see spam, several of the articles are about this, as computing which is part of the reason why I have an issue with the proposed names. Having said that, I would not oppose a rename from the current name since that may well be the worst option on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - While searching for this category few days back, I looked for Cyber Law legislation and Information technology law legislation, but not Computer law legislation. Computer law seems like an archaic term for me. The best suggestion would be renaming it to Information technology law legislation. AmartyabagTALK2ME 05:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think after reading all of these comments that "computing" is probably the best of several terms, none of which are quite right. "Cyber" tends to be used to refer more to Internet-related, and exclude some of the copyright/patent issues. "Information technology" obviously has its partisans, but it's the least popular term among practitioners and users of the field. "Computer law" has the grammatical problems that set people's teeth on edge when drawn into the subcategories. So "Computing law" and its various subsidiaries seems like the best so far. --Lquilter (talk) 14:35, 29 April 2013 (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.
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:selective merge, to be done manually. There is no consensus to create or rename categories using the word "apps". – FayenaticLondon 20:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The mobile software category already comprehensively covers software known as "apps." --Jtalledo(talk) 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge these are basically the same thing. after merge, things in Category:Mobile software should be diffused down to the more specific categories as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point since mobile software is a redirect to mobile application development which does not appear to describe the contents up for discussion. Also which term best describes applications running on tablets only with wifi and are not useable while user is moving unless the data is stored on the device? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The main articles for the mobile software category are both mobile software and mobile app, the latter of which directly relates to said contents. As for the last bit, that's just semantics, a mobile app is a mobile app whether or not it functions without a network connection. If it runs on a mobile device, it's a mobile app.--Jtalledo(talk) 19:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, mobile software is not an article it is a redirect. Also your reply seems to indicate that Category:Mobile apps is a better option then either of the two existing ones. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Apps is a redirect page too so that particular point is moot. It is also an ambiguous term. At least mobile software is a well-defined category. --Jtalledo(talk) 23:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned in my vote, most of these should be placed in a more specific category. Mobile software is actually a bit more broad than mobile apps - mobile software might include operating system or security layers of the mobile stack, whereas an OS would not really be considered an app. In any case, the category is a dupe and should be just merged, then we need to go through all of the entries (not just the new ones) in Category:Mobile software and bubble them down to the specific sub-cats (like IOS apps, etc). That Mobile software is a redirect is frankly irrelevant - the articles here are around software development and apps, and if someone wanted someday an article could be written on the broader space of mobile software (vs. apps alone) - but that should not concern us.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Case-by-case removal - It may be the case that all the articles in Category:Apps are mobile-apps, but the term "apps" has applicability outside of the mobile sphere. Hence, "mobile apps" to distinguish from "apps" (currently a disambiguation page with a link to applications). Pages should be individually moved to Category:Mobile software if appropriate. If there are non-mobile apps in here (or other things relating to "Apps" as a term), then we can re-assess. --Lquilter (talk) 21:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. The fact that "App" is ambiguous is another reason the category shouldn't stay as it is now. --Jtalledo(talk) 23:10, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not as a separate category tree. Any such separations can happen at the lower level - for example we already have Category:IOS_games, one could create Category:IOS_Operating systems if necessary (but I don't think so at this time.). But having a whole tree - I don't see this as worth it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, mobile divices have non-application software too, most notably operating systems. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Not about killer apps or other apps; thus highly ambiguous, thus ineligible for use as a category name. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if the category is the appropriate name then we use it. Mobile software covers the OS, development environments and apps. That is too broad. Most people don't care about the development environments. Not sure how much they care about the OS, but clearly they are concerned about what apps run on the OS that comes with their device. In the end people use the apps. They don't use the OS. So if this creates another tree there is nothing wrong. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is right. Users are going to look for "apps". If we have to develop the relevant category trees, then we have to do it. --Lquilter (talk) 14:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No. AFAIK, "app" is short for "computer software application", with a current common semantic usage indicating such applications on a portable device. It would be like suggesting creating category trees for "cells", rather than cellular phones. Dab pages and redirects can take care of this just fine I would think? And (just for the sake of argument : ) - Consider WP:RECENTISM, or at least WP:NOTJARGON : ) - jc37 02:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - but should be done as a manual merge, as noted above. Strongly oppose using the term "app" in category naming at this time. - jc37 02:16, 9 June 2013 (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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 21:13, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this singers discussion, I don't think we need to segregate Chinese musicians and artists by what their country was called at the time.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. I understand the rationales raised in the singers discussion, yet I think the discussers reached the wrong decision there and that that wrong decision shouldn't be repeated here. First all, there is the issue that "Chinese" is used as an ethnonym for the Chinese ethnicity and for the people who are from China. Second, while I am cognizant that there had already been discussions that resulted in the Republic of China article being moved to Taiwan, I don't see why we should increase ambiguity. Three, in the case of a country with this lengthy of a country's history and massive populations throughout its country's history, distinguishing between the modern era and the ancient helps making the categories not so confusing and unmanageable. --Nlu (talk) 19:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all per Nlu. RyanVesey 20:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all our article is at China, thus the denonym for people from China is Chinese. We have agreed that the term we use for that country is China, Chinese, etc. These is no reason not to apply that agreement here. There is no other country which we refuse to let people in its current incarnation be identified with the name, even when we subdivide off people from past periods. The ethnonym claim also has no real relevance. Most denonyms for countries can be used as ethnonyms, but that does not stop us having Category:Indian composers, Category:German writers, Category:Greek singers and Category:Armenian painters refer to the designated countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all this type of categorization is overly ambiguous, as ethnic Chinese doing these things are also called that, and those calligraphers who write in Chinese are also called that, and those who sing/write in Chinese in Chinese are called that. "Chinese calligraphy" itself is something practised all over East Asia, so that is even more ambiguous considering the name of the artform. Further, painters and calligraphers need to be divided by period. The master categories for China should be "xyz of China" not "Chinese" being confused with the ethnicity and language. -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 06:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom -- but purge of any Taiwanese. We have reeached a consesnus that China measn mainland China =PRC and predecessors. There is therefore no reason why we should not use the demonym for it. I can see a possible ambiguity over calligraphers, in that this refers to the decorative use of Chinese script, but that can be resolved by providing "Chinese calligraphers of Taiwan" etc, if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all and purge We don't need to break down creators by political era and the whole PRC=China issue has been settled so there's no ambiguity there. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all per the reasons offered by Nlu. Dimadick (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ethnonym argument could be used for Spanish, English, German and hundreds of others. There is no reason that Chinese is a special ethnonym superseding its use as a nationality identifier. People are as likely to mean citizens of China with Chinese as they are citizens of Spain with Spanish, if not more so. So there is no reason to treat this category different. If people think the confusion is too much, this is an issue for all uses of nationality identifiers that also can identify ethnicities and languages, and China should not be treated differently than the rest.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:04, 21 April 2013 (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.
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.
Delete per nom. These are not part of an overall scheme and the name formats are non-standard. I don't think they are needed to group the things that are in subcategories. "Geography of FOO" is sufficient and accomplishes the same thing well enough. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is GEOGRAPHY a child or a parent of a PLACE(country/city etc)? Ottawahitech (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have no objection if these are deleted. They were based on the subcategorisation at Category:Places which also links these "otherwise unconnected twigs of category space." Skinsmoke (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, i previously nominated "places in the SFB Area" and places in California", discussion found here, which were deleted. the only example i found in use at the time (i now think there were more) was this very category. same rationales apply, unnecessary layer.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteSkinsmoke is the creator of this and (I presume) another of other saplings planted to house Angleseay articles. He appears to be a long standing editor and should know better than to invent a load of unnecessary new trees. At the bottom of this was "Protected areas in Anglesey", which may be a valid category, but there should be a way of parenting it without these tendrils. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2013 (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.
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. Its contents seem to have been pruned already. – FayenaticLondon 13:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Betws-y-Coed is a tiny place. Its eponymous category is being used to house a random hotch-potch of articles related in tenuous mostly undefining ways to Betws-y-Coed and moreover these articles have been moved from appropriate parents to this illegitimate one. Oculi (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean out the tenuous articles. I agree many of this users new categories are pointless, but Betws is not an insignificant place in Wales and there are at least four articles I can see which are about Betws, or things in Betws. Sionk (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do not create eponymous categories for every significant place. There should firstly be properly defined subcats eg 'People from BC', 'Buildings and structures in BC' etc. We have 'what links here' for articles which mention BC. Oculi (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so now you agree it's significant ;) But you would only create 'People from BC' if there were notable people from BC. The category system needs commonsense. Sionk (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a place being "significant" (ie, eligible for an article) and a place requiring a self-named category to group things about that place. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: None of these articles have been "moved from appropriate parents to this illegitimate one". The only article to have been moved at all is Betws-y-Coed, on the grounds that if it is in Category:Betws-y-Coed, it should not also be in the categories to which that category belongs. All the "random hotchpotch of articles related in tenuous mostly undefining ways to Betws-y-Coed" are physically in the community of Betws-y-Coed, either wholly or in part. Tenuous and undefining? It's where they are, and it's difficult to think of anything more defining than geographic location. To quote from the articles:
Afon Lledr: "The river joins the River Conwy to the south of Betws-y-Coed."
Conwy Valley Railway Museum: "The Conwy Valley Railway Museum is located at Betws-y-Coed railway station, Betws-y-Coed, North Wales, on the site of the old railway goods yard."
Gwydir Forest: "The forest broadly encircles the village of Betws-y-Coed, and much of its midsection lies within the parish."
Llyn Elsi: "Llyn Elsi is a lake located above the village of Betws-y-coed in the Snowdonia National Park in North Wales."
Llyn Parc: "Llyn Park (also known as "Llyn y Parc") is a lake in the Gwydir Forest in North Wales." As already noted, Gwydir Forest "broadly encircles the village of Betws-y-Coed", and the lake is located in the community.
River Conwy: "It rises on the Migneint moor where a number of small streams flow into Llyn Conwy, then flows in a generally northern direction, being joined by the tributaries of the rivers Machno and Lledr before reaching Betws-y-Coed, where it is also joined by the River Llugwy."
River Llugwy: "On entering Betws-y-Coed it is crossed by the Miner's Bridge, a curious wooden bridge set at a steep incline over the river, and shortly after passing under Pont-y-pair road bridge it flows beside the main street before its confluence with the Conwy at the far end of the golf course."
Sarn Helen: "In the north the route is believed to follow the western bank of the river Conwy from Canovium, a fort at Caerhun, passing through Trefriw, then leading on to Betws y Coed, with a branch leading to Caer Llugwy near Capel Curig."
Swallow Falls: "Swallow Falls is a name coined by early tourists for the Rhaeadr Ewynnol (English: Foaming Waterfall), a multiple waterfall system in Wales, located on the Afon Llugwy near Betws-y-Coed, in Conwy county borough."
Waterloo Bridge, Betws-y-Coed: "Waterloo Bridge is an early cast iron bridge, spanning the River Conwy at Betws-y-Coed, in Conwy county borough, north-west Wales."
Betws-y-coed may well be on the River Clwyd but few people (well, only one I can think of) would describe the River Clwyd as being in Betws. Categories aren't meant for ever article that mentions the subject or phrase in passing! Sionk (talk) 18:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you'd like to inform that one person that Betws-y-Coed is nowhere near the River Clwyd, which is why the River Clwyd article isn't categorised as being in Betws-y-Coed. If you meant the River Conwy, I think you will find that one of the reasons Betws-y-Coed developed as an inland resort was its location, with the river running alongside the main street, making it an attractive location for Victorian tourists, and being capitalised on by the building of hotels and a cafe overlooking the river. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but purge of rivers etc - if rivers were categorised by every town they pass through that would be a lot of categories on some articles. DexDor (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It is not uncommon, not just in the United Kingdom, but around the world, for rivers to be categorised by the places they pass through. For the longest rivers we deal with it differently, because, as you say, there would be hundred of places to be categorised. In those cases we have categories like Category:Populated places on rivers in the United Kingdom and Category:Populated riverside places. However, for the shorter rivers running through just a few places, that clearly wouldn't be feasible. Still there should be a connection. The river is usually a major feature of the place and a defining characteristic of (and often the reason for the existence of) the settlement. For example, Category:Populated places on the River Thames includes 170 settlements, either as categories, articles or in subcategories. Skinsmoke (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What are the inclusion criteria for Category:Betws-y-Coed? (I don't see how a name can be defining. If so we would have kept Category:John Wayne etc.) The towns for which we have categories have well-defined subcats such as 'People from', 'Buildings in' etc: see eg Category:Towns in Derbyshire where every town category has at least one subcat. Oculi (talk) 00:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but purge per BHG & others. Johnbod (talk) 13:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge -- Category space is being misued so that linear features such as Sarn Helen (also various rivers anbd valleys) are being categorised as if Sarn Helen was in Betws-y-Coed, rather than passing through it. We cannot have river Severn (to take a more outragious example) in the category for every place along its banks. This raises the same issue as performance by performer categories. We might have a category for places along the river Severn (or Sarn Helen), but not vice versa. The Sarn Helen cluttered with a large number of categories for places along it, and many of these need to be culled en masse. I think that when this has been purged, we will still be left with enough for a category, but that will not apply everywhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Could an admin perhaps roll back most of the recent category creations by user:Skinsmoke, which are overwhelming innocent articles such as River Clwyd with a ludicrous number of categories? (There is no article on Aberwheeler or Waen.) Oculi (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. There are no articles suitable for them. I could understand Aberwheeler or Waen articles being in a category called 'River Clwyd' but not the other way around! Literally dozens of similar categories created by Skinsmoke could be added to this nomination!! Sionk (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Unfortunately, we do not have a category for River Clwyd. It would probably make more sense to have Category:Populated places on the River Clwyd, in view of its length, as a subcategory of Category:Populated places on rivers in the United Kingdom, but in view of Sionk's objection to the creation of new categories, I hesitated about going down that path. Undoubtedly we should (but don't yet) have articles on the two communities, as it is an objective of Wikipedia:WikiProject UK geography to have an article on every civil parish and community in the United Kingdom. Having said that, I must admit I am struggling to find anything else that can link into these two. Skinsmoke (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"I am struggling to find anything else that can link into these two" suggests you don't understand WP:Categorization the whole point of which is to categorize WP pages. DexDor (talk) 06:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. It shows that I created the categories in the expectation that there would be other items that linked into them (as is the case for the overwhelming majority of communities), and was then surprised, when I started looking for other items, that there weren't any. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think categories for places should be created prior to articles about the places being written! Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Can you point us to that guidance, or is it a personal opinion? There are thousands of categories that don't have an article that directly relates to their subject. Skinsmoke (talk) 04:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give some examples of those thousands of categories (preferably that have survived a CFD) ? DexDor (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't being flippant or combative. I was genuinely asking for such guidance. Skinsmoke (talk) 06:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am unaware of thousands of categories that lack a main article, and I'm not aware of any that have survived a CFD. To have a category created prior to a corresponding article would be strange indeed—not unheard of, perhaps, but definitely unusual and probably in most cases ill-advised. So where are these categories? Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Alternatively, these categories could be purged of articles that do not belong in them and then deleted as empty; that may be the way ahead on some of Skinsmoke's other categories. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Roll back all Skinsmoke's recent cateogries. As an experienced editor he should know that categoiries are a navigation aid and not be creating all these performance by performer categories. "Populated places along river Clwyd" or even "places along river Clwyd" would be a valid category, but we should not have "river Clwyd" categorised under every place along it: that is a misuse of category space. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:39, 13 April 2013 (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:Players of Canadian football killed in accidents[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. Wizardman 19:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We have schemes for categorizing accident deaths by location and by type of accident, but not by profession. I don't think it's appropriate to combine profession and type of death into categories unless there is some sort of connection between the two, as with Category:Deaths in sport, but this is not categorizing people who died while playing Canadian football. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#TRIVIAL. The deaths are very sad, but the intersection between "accidents" and "Canadian football players" is trivial. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't these be divided into left handed and right handed players? </sarcasm> - or just deleteCarlossuarez46 (talk) 02:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is categorization by trivial intersection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:55, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I suspect this isn't the first time this type of intersection has been tried, but you're right that it's an undesirable WP:OCAT violation if the death didn't actually take place on the field. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I checked a smaple. One was a Category:Deaths in sport item; the rest were sportmen killed in aircrashes or carcrashes. The cause of death and being a sportsman are a trivial intersection. IN some sports the participants are grossly overpaid, and are thus able to afford cars more powerful than is justified by their driving experience, perhpas leading to a higher mortailty in car crashes; so what? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you'd find players of Canadian football that are "grossly overpaid". The average CFL salary is well below $CAD 100,000. :) Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Trivial intersection that is not going to be a specific topic of interest. I can't even imagine that there would be a head article. --Lquilter (talk) 01:14, 30 April 2013 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Convert. An article in category space. The article looks to be autobiographical; it may be eligible for deletion after conversion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:25, 8 April 2013 (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.
Group of sheep and goat articles in category space[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:Articilize. Some were straight converts as proposed. Others where merged to articles as proposed in the discussion. Others were merged as proposed and then the combined article listed for merging into another article so the experts can sort it out. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Convert/merge text to articles. This is a group of sheep and goat articles that were crated in category space. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do these need discussions? They seem like maintenance moves to me. RyanVesey 20:54, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They may well be of a highly administrative nature, but the tagging for the discussion at least serves as notice to the creator, and it gives him an opportunity to comment and explain if he wishes—and perhaps even learn something about how WP works. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice finds—I wasn't aware of the slight spelling differences. I think you are right on all those points. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the same applies to the others also, but haven't been able to find anything. Skinsmoke (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added one to the list. Pichpich (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert -- These are all articles sitting in category space. In several cases as Skinsmoke points out there are already articles, but usually poor stubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Admin Note: This is going to be closed as articleize for at least some of these. I'm doing the merges/create after reviewing each case. If anything is left after this work on the empty categories, we can decide how to proceed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2013 (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.
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. Wizardman 15:00, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Anyone can choose to drink any beverage at breakfast. There is nothing about any of these beverages that make them an inherent "breakfast" beverage. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:05, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. People can and do drink anything at breakfast, and there is no drink which s consumed exclusively at breakfast. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
hmmm what about Category:Breakfast foods then? Wouldn't the same argument apply? Also, I don't this this category is claiming "exclusivity", I think it is more "what beverages are commonly drunk at breakfast. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply "commonly drunk at breakfast" means very different things now to what it did 100 years ago, and it means very different things in different cultures. I doubt that 19th-century Finns often had orange juice for breakfast, and I doubt that many 21st-century Floridans drink mead or ale for breakfast. I don't see that Category:Breakfast foods is much better, and if this category is deleted I will nominate it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with BHG - if (theoretically) there was a type of orange juice only ever drunk at breakfast in Florida then it would be eligible for this cat regardless of what they drink in Finland. DexDor (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep and purge. Membership in this category (and Category:Breakfast foods) can be confirmed through third party sources such as cookbooks.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone finds some articles about drinks for which breakfast is a defining characteristic. Being sometimes used as a breakfast-time drink is not a defining characteristic. DexDor (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and purge per Obi-Wan Kenobi. The fact that anyone can choose to drink whatever they want for breakfast does not mean that drinks in this category are not breakfast drinks. Orange Juice, for example, is unarguably a breakfast beverage, even if I can choose to drink pop with my breakfast or orange juice with my supper. RyanVesey 20:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is orange juice a breakfast drink in Kenya? In Mongolia? Why do editors want to categorise things by their use in one culture as if it was a universal experience? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I often drink orange juice right before going to bed. (I love the way it interacts with toothpaste aftertaste, yum.) I never drink it at breakfast. This is all highly subjective and time and place dependent, as BHG has pointed out. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think this violates some sort of law, I'm just not sure which one. Orange juice after toothpaste? What would your dentist say! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I know exactly what she would say: "So—how often do you floss?" That's what she always says. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They may indeed drink juice in the morning in Kenya - at least that's what they serve in the hotels I stay at... In any case, if there was a traditional Mongolian drink that was drunk primarily at breakfast, and we had an article for it, then it could go in the same category. Just because something is not *universally* used as a breakfast drink does not mean that it is not a breakfast drink at all. For example, we have Category:Appetizers, Category:Snack_foods, but the bulk of those articles are not "appetizers" everywhere in the world, nor are the "snack foods" of one country the same as another. If needed, we could sub-cat this with Category:Continental breakfast drinks (or some other notion that picks up on the specifics of American/European breakfasts), and have a separate one for Category:Asian breakfast drinks etc to capture other variation. I'm just not sure where you get the notion that something must be universal in order for it to belong to a category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:16, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because the category itself declares itself by implication to be universal—there are no limitations by culture, by time period, or by anything else. There are no limiting statements in the category name. You've thrown out some WP:OTHERCRAP examples, some of which probably have the same general problems. Categories are very blunt tools, which means when they are used the contents should unambiguously belong in the category—in other words, yes, it does have to be universal or extremely close to that if no limiting statements exist in the category name. The creator has probably created this using his own experience of what he deems to be breakfast beverages—but that ignores (1) 99% of other cultures, and (2) 99% of history. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Try this: Category:Mythological kings - this is a lovely list of kings, all of whom were presumably "mythological" for some place or culture, but not for 99% of places or cultures. This is not a case of WP:OTHERCRAP, this is a general tendency of the category tree - when we place things in it, they just have to belong per the category classification, there is no requirement of universality (or near-universality). Here's another one for fun: Category:Lucky symbols. As things build up, eventually people create subcats and diffuse things down - in the case of the Kings, a few subcats already exist, but there isn't a subcat for every possible country/culture.
The example of Category:Breakfast foods is another good one, since it could quite comfortably hold bacon and eggs as well as noodle soup (Thailand) or fried dough (China) - and why not? And, as I suggested, if we want to limit, then we could create sub-cats which diffuse - so Category:Western breakfast drinks or Category:Continental breakfast drinks etc. - we just need to find some mechanism that is not country based (IMHO), but a bit more broad (perhaps continents?) - it still means we would keep the top level cat however. The existence of a generic top-level cat does not imply any universality, and if you can show me examples to the contrary I'd love to see them - I can show you lots of examples that demonstrate my point.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that convinced by the example of mythological kings. Those included in the category are undoubtedly (or at least should be, to be in the category) mythological kings, no matter what context they are discussed. The fact that they are not mythological kings in every mythology is irrelevant. A parallel would be a beverage that is only consumed in Armenia, and it is only ever consumed at breakfast. Such a beverage would not have to be consumed at breakfast in all countries to qualify as a breakfast beverage. So more broadly, to be categorized, the article does not have to be the "category thing" across all cultures, but within its own sphere of existence it does have to universally be a "category thing". That's precisely the problem with this category—a user has taken a variety of beverages which are consumed in a variety of contexts and has taken out one particular context and universalized that single use through a category. (I'm not really convinced by the aforementioned WP:OTHERCRAP examples that keep being referred to: the fact that other categories exist with the similar or identical problem is not a good reason to say that this one is OK.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:55, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Mythological kings is not really a great example. The articles there are all mythological kings in their respective cultures, and in other cultures, they simply aren't known. Being a mythological king is inherent to their substance and notability. But a cappuccino is a breakfast drink in Italy and an all-day drink in other places. Tomato juice is a breakfast drink for some and absolutely never a breakfast drink for others. These beverages' inclusion is questionable and not necessarily useful. Ibadibam (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If members of a WikiProject want a category to help them in their work, then it should be a project category, applied to the article's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: In your experience is your suggestion effective? Can you point us to Wikiprojects that have resorted to this strategy? Thanks. Ottawahitech (talk) 22:17, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, this is pretty much universal. The presence of a WikiProject template on a talk page implicitly adds categories to that talk page. These categories are used to populate lists and assessment tables for the relevant WikiProjects. For example, Category:Cheeses articles by quality is used to populate the Cheese Task Force assessment box. WikiProject Breakfast has these categories already, so I'm not sure how the category under discussion really helps the WikiProject. Ibadibam (talk) 19:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't seem to fit WP:DEFINING for any of the articles in this category. A beverage would have to inherently be a breakfast item, and I'm not sure that's true of any beverage. We'd do better to create a List of breakfast beverages — as per WP:CAT's guidelines on article categorization — so that inclusion can be sourced and substantiated. Ibadibam (talk) 00:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Lol—well, WP:DEFINING does have a significant history of support. It's the current guideline, so until it changes, we use it as a guide in category discussions. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'm curious as to whether those proposing delete think the same logic applies to Category:Breakfast foods - for example waffles are a traditional breakfast in the US, but in Belgium they are more of a dessert. Uh oh - another example: Category:Desserts, which includes Category:French_pastry, which includes many things I consider (and french people consider) to be breakfast! In the US, an omlette is a very classic breakfast food, but in France it would really only be eaten for lunch. Same applies for crepes, which are breakfast in the US but dessert elsewhere. Frankly I think for these food categories, we don't need to be as strict in applying the categorization rules, we should go more by what seems right for the encyclopedia. I think if one culture/country traditionally drinks X as a breakfast drink, and you can source it appropriately, then it should stay. I'd welcome proposals for how to break it down- do we do it by country? By continent? The same would apply to the Category:Breakfast foods cat. It's really hard to say what makes something "inherently" something - for example in many parts of Asia, noodle soups are eaten for breakfast, but in the US we would not consider that a breakfast food - but that fact doesn't all of a sudden make it *not* a breakfast food for millions of people! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify both breakfast foods and breakfast beverages , since both are consumed all the time (as shown by breakfast joints open through the afternoon, with people eating it for lunch) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 04:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryan Vesey. Another example: Not everyone in Japan eats sushi...but it's still Japanese cuisine, even if someone in Scotland were to eat it.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when a beverage is drunk by whom is not a basis for objective categorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Carlossuarez46: If you want the category deleted, why did you add Coca cola to the category (diff page)? It is curious that you added an uncommon breakfast beverage to the category while also !voting to delete it. Northamerica1000(talk) 03:03, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Northamerica1000 - your removal of the category proves its uselessness. As you saw, I added a source (the New York Times) about Coke as a breakfast beverage - but since it didn't suit your POV that Coke isn't a breakfast beverage, you deleted the cat. You apparently think that your WP:OR trumps the reliable source that Coke is a breakfast beverage - it doesn't. But your subjective edit does prove that this category is purely subjective and must be deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't intending original research in removing the category, but is Coca-Cola really a common, well-known breakfast beverage? The company's attempts to market the product as such does not immediately correspond with widespread acceptance of the notion by virtue of the company's efforts alone. Advertising and marketing campaigns do not automatically correlate with actual consumer preferences. I apologize if you were offended by the category's removal, as this wasn't my intention. It is still curious that you want the category deleted while simultaneously adding to it, but it's all good. I took the time to format the source in the Coca-Cola article (also see below), rather than leaving it as a bare url there. Also, out of curiosity, how is this is a "classic example" of the category being useless? I'll retain my keep !vote above. Northamerica1000(talk) 06:19, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Really, why is this even worth discussing? Oh yes. The alleged wisdom of crowds. There are folk who drink their own wee in the mornings. Is human urine thus a breakfast beverage? How about water? Beer? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic, if someone from Scotland decides to eat sushi then sushi is automatically no longer Japanese food.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 02:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's an unfair comparison. Sushi is indigenous to Japan. "Breakfast" is not a country, so there is no parallel to the by-country cuisine categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it an unfair comparision? Are you sure your comment isn't influecned by WP:IDON'TLIKEIT instead of actually thinking about the encyclopedia? You might respond to this saying WP:AGF or something like that, but something about this deletion discussion smells like a WP:GAME, and playing the assume good faith card would be a classic way of trying to "defeat" my comment, not that arguments on Wikipedia should be for "winning" or "scoring points". Someone might reply WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but then again, Wikipedia should aim to be consistent.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 05:58, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure. It's an unfair comparison because you're comparing applies to oranges. I thought my initial comment made that clear. It sounds like you need to get your nose checked out. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say my nose is fine, it's just my hayfever. But on that note, how would you know about my recent medical condition unless you've been stalking me? I'm kind of creeped out about the idea of having a stalker. As for your apples and oranges comment...both apples and oranges have articles on Wikipedia. Like I said, if you want to talk about being "fair", you'd aim to be as consistent as possible.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I'm not really following your argument. I'm not clear if your comment about apples and oranges is a joke or a serious argument, and I'm not at all clear how you think I'm being inconsistent about anything, since I've already explained that I believe the cases are inherently un-alike. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what I think of your comments. Is your post a serious comment or a joke? I ask this because it is very unlikely that you could apparently know about someone's nose condition unless you know (or are stalking) them in real life. That's what makes it hard to take your comments seriously. That you'd apparently be aware of my hayfever is kind of creepy.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made the comment about your nose needing checked out solely because you said "something about this deletion discussion smells like a WP:GAME". I don't view this nomination as a game, nor did I start it with the intention of it becoming one. My comment was facetious—not exactly a joke, but a comment that simply carried on the same metaphor that you had used. I don't have the slightest clue who you are in "real life", nor am I stalking you on WP, nor was I suggesting that I know that you have hayfever. The fact that you have hayfever and I made a comment about your nose can be chalked up to coincidence and you have read too much into my comment. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not defining of the things involed. I became convinced of this when I noticed Champagne in the category. The list is not much better, but champagne is not there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely you jest. A redirect to a see also section does not make this aspect defining. In any case, redirects to see also sections make no sense at all. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I never associate hot chocolate with breakfast. I have drunk orange juice with ever meal. My father drinks milk almost every night at dinner. Most of the smothies I have had were not breakfast drinks. Nor am I alone, considering how busy in the middle of a hot afternoon many a smoothie shop I have been to was. I remember getting milk at Taco Bell, and the Taco Bell involved was not even open for breakfast. This category just plain does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what? I don't necessarily associate dragons with China, but they are still a significant part of Chinese culture.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 03:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A breakfast beverage is something some people drink at breakfast - how else (objectively) could it be defined. Based on the above, I'm surprised that we couldn't find a source for nearly every beverage being consumed by some people at breakfast. Even water (no doubt common), and even the allusion to urine above. Yuck. And as for champagne - just google champagne brunch and champagne breakfast and you'll see that it passes the lips before lunch. Again, reinforcing the uselessness of this cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that same logic, what if we found a source about a family that traditionally ate sandpaper for Christmas or a family that traditonally purchased new curtains on Halloween? So instead of the cat being useless, I instead see Carlossuarez46's comment as useless.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not voting either way, but I've removed Orange Julius and Smoothie from the category. These definitely aren't associated with breakfast specifically. Especially with the former, when was the last time you had breakfast in a mall? --BDD (talk) 20:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- none are specifically to be drunk only at breakfast. Strictly it should be merge to beverages, but I expect that would be disruptive as some are cocktails, which are probably already in sub-cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, turkeys aren't specifically to be eaten at Thanksgiving/Christmas. I could have one this week if I wanted. That delete !vote is pretty good logic for elementary grade school level, but unfortunatley this is Wikipedia, a site that adults with adult logic use on a daily basis. --DrumstickJuggler (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Food in general is an area fraught with potential controversy. What is food in some cultures may raise eyebrows or elicit disgust in other cultures. Insects are considered a delicacy in some places, a rotten sheep’s head buried in the ground for weeks before it's consumed, etc, etc. So what if some cultures consider some foods as breakfast foods/beverages while others don’t – it does not mean that this category does not have merit. Ottawahitech (talk) 15:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is all the more reason to delete it. Categories should be noncontroversial, based on common and consistent defining characteristics, not subjective, open-ended groups. Isn't that what lists are for? Ibadibam (talk) 18:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's a reason to keep. Wikipedia is full of potentially "controversial" categorization. For example, while one person might consider a particular song to be alternative metal, another person may consider the same song to instead be alternative rock and not every genre listed in song article infoboxes on Wikipedia is referenced by a source that suggests as such. This is just an example but you can't truly claim "noncontroversial consistency" exists on Wikipedia when the mentioned phenomenon occurs, otherwise you're just contradicting your comment Therefore, the ivote keep is valid.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 20:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about the nature of categories, and it was a poor choice on my part to say "noncontroversial". I will respectfully point out that your counterexample is not particularly suited, as Alternative metal songs is actually a subcategory of Alternative rock songs.
Songs are actually an interesting case. The genre of a particular recording is always defining; the genre of the song itself is usually defining, though not always. Song articles seem to be categorized based on the combined genres of their notable recordings, so that I Don't Want to Miss a Thing, for example, is in both Rock ballads and Country ballads. This is an imperfection in the categorization system that arises from a quirk of usage: "song" may refer either to a composition or to a recording of a composition. A song article is both about a song and its notable recordings.
It would perhaps be more precise to call a category "Alternative metal recordings" rather than "Alternative metal songs", but this would be somewhat less natural. It's also worth noting that the genre of a song is a brand designated by its creator or vendor, and that brand is often preserved when the song is transmitted to another culture. What passes for "metal" in New York is roughly equivalent to what passes for "metal" in Munich, Kinshasa and Jakarta.
Ok, so now that that's out of the way, consider the cappuccino, which originated as a breakfast beverage. To an Italian, it would likely seem sensible to include the article "Cappuccino" in this category. To a North American, that article could just as easily be included in "Lunch beverages" or "After-dinner beverages" categories. These categories are based not on inherent or defining traits of the articles therein; they are based on varied and culture-dependent consumption patterns. Coffee is an even worse case, as it is drunk at any meal, or at any other time. Should we categorize it under "Breakfast beverages", "Lunch beverages", "Supper beverages" and "Breaktime beverages"? That granularity of categorization seems almost useless. The time at which it is consumed is not a defining characteristic of coffee. We can say that "Bulls on Parade" is an alternative metal song, but it's odd to say that "Bulls on Parade" serves as an alternative metal song. To say that coffee is a breakfast beverage is inaccurate; rather, coffee serves as a breakfast beverage. And that's why this editor considers "Alternative metal songs" to be a valid category but not "Breakfast beverages". Ibadibam (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The characteristic is not defining for any drink. Oculi (talk) 00:07, 17 April 2013 (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.
