Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 29

March 29

Category:Security exploits

Propose renaming Category:Security exploits to Category:Computer security exploits

Propose renaming Category:Security software to Category:Computer security software

Propose renaming Category:Security software companies to Category:Computer security software companies

Nominator's rationale: Security is a broad subject area, of interest to many Wikipedia users. These categories would appear to be of interest to those users. However those categories are not for the broad area of security, but rather for the specific area of computer security. This renaming is consistent with existing categories: Category:Computer security, Category:Computer security models, Category:Computer network security, Category:Computer security organizations, Category:People associated with computer security, and Category:Computer security procedures. 69.106.242.20 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs that failed to chart

Category:Songs that failed to chart - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm having a hard time understanding why we might need this category. If a song fails to chart on any chart, then are we even going to have a WP article about it? Probably not, is my guess (though I know very little about the topic). At this stage, the category is populated, but only by redirects. Even if we could populate it, since we generally don't have categories for popularity charts (lists have been preferred), I don't think we need a category that categorizes songs for an achievement that the songs did not achieve. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: Obviously non-notable classification. Most songs fail to reach a chart; even a notable song might not. -- SEWilco (talk) 22:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. I'm having a really hard time trying to formulate a good rationale for any category of this general sort. For instance, would we want to have categories for athletes (or horses) who failed to win races? I can't imagine that. And if memory serves, we deleted a category for failed political candidates a couple of months back, on similar grounds. So unless there's some singularly important factor that we're missing here, I just don't see a future for this category. I'm afraid it's gonna have to be added to the roster of Category:Failed categories. Oh, I see... I guess that one washed out too. Cgingold (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• I just saw in the edit history that the category's creator said the following in his edit summary: "This one may not be necessary, but i still think that it sounds good." So he probably won't be terribly surprised to learn of this CFD. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• And no i won't. I knew that it wouldn't be necessary in the first place, but i just wanted to present a good idea for a category, which now i know that it wasn't such a good idea. So go ahead and delete it if it's necessary. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

• Nothing wrong with trying things - some times it just doesn't work out. Live and learn, right? Cgingold (talk) 01:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Quickly. Johnbod (talk) 01:30, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There are many songs that didn't chart, but it isn't clear that their non-charting defines them or that anyone would want to navigate through this common characteristic. I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I don't see how this category aids navigation. Alansohn (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Songs produced by Maestro (producer)

Category:Songs produced by Maestro (producer) - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Contains just one item, therefore a bit pointless! Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 19:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't seem to have a lot of songs produced. Precedent with "produced by" categories is that the producer needs multiple solo productions to qualify. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:04, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Canadian MPs who have crossed the floor

Category:Canadian MPs who have crossed the floor - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is pretty much a textbook example of the kind of thing that should be handled by a list rather than a category; note that List of Canadian politicians who have crossed the floor already exists. Bearcat (talk) 19:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I think the recent comparable UK category was kept, no? Ask Bhg. Johnbod (talk) 01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Party changes are a strong defining characteristic. The argument that this is somehow better handled as a list is in clear conflict with WP:CLN, the relevant guideline in the matter, which strongly advocates for the synergistic co-existence of categories AND lists. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CLN does not require that categories and lists always co-exist; in fact, it explicitly states that there are times when it is more appropriate to have only a list. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:CLN states that co-existence is the preferred situation. Will you bother to offer a reason as to why the category must be deleted given that a list exists, despite WP:CLN? Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per Alansohn. Categories can't contain redlinks. Lugnuts (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Why would "categories can't contain redlinks" be a rationale for keeping the category? Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Useful and a defining feature.--SaskatchewanSenator (talk) 07:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - amounts to a "former Foos" category, capturing members of one party who used to belong to a different party. We generally don't categorize on current vs former distinctions. "Crossed the floor" is not a term that most of the world would understand. WP:CLN does not in any way mandate any category. Yes, it advises that lists and categories can work synergistically but it also recognizes that there are instances when one is clearly superior to another. I'm at a loss as to how a category's being unable to contain redlinks is an argument in favor of the category as opposed to a list, since redlinks in a list of party-switching politicians would serve to illuminate politicians who are missing articles, something a category can't do. A list would also allow for sorting by date, old party, new party, whereas a category can only be an alphabetical list. Otto4711 (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
  • While you are absolutely correct that "a category can only be an alphabetical list", all you've provided is an excellent explanation for elimination of the entire category system, as no category can ever be any more than that, even ones you like. Can you offer any justification for why the category and list should not exist synergistically as recommended by WP:CLN? Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Energy resource facilities in Chile

Suggest merging Category:Energy resource facilities in Chile to Category:Energy infrastructure in Chile

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Overlapping categories. Beagel (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Child actors that have a youtube channel

Category:Child actors that have a youtube channel - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: A category just to show what "child actors" have YouTube accounts just seems unnecessary. Frehley^{Space Ace} 17:13, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-defining. Lugnuts (talk) 18:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Oh dear lord - delete, obviously, non-defining in the extreme. Otto4711 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• One of my categories is currently nominated for deletion. But this category is better than the one that i created. This category ain't a really stupid idea. I just thought i'd ask since i'm here, and i saw such a category like this one. Well, do whatever you all think, but this ain't really a stupid category. If it is, then explain why it's stupid and unnecessary in the first place. (Ryanbstevens (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC))

• Well, for one thing, if you take a look at Category:YouTube, you'll notice that we don't even have an overall category for people who have YouTube channels, much less sub-cats for particular sub-groups. Basically, this is considered a relatively minor characteristic that doesn't reach the level of importance to warrant a category. Cgingold (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Celebutantes

Category:Celebutantes - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: The idea is subjective, making it a POV category. Aspects (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• del one of those categories which is better done as a list with careful referencing. --Salix (talk): 19:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. It is subjective and little known. Fences and windows (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• keep The history of the word in valid and is referenced...what's more, the article stands up to every one of the 5 pillars. 207.237.33.36 (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. The thing is, categories are different from articles, and have somewhat different requirements. I can't say for sure whether this topic would stand up as an article, but as has already been said, it's simply too subjective to be a workable basis for a category. And note that a number of categories for "celebrities" have already been deleted for that very reason. Cgingold (talk) 01:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Playlist

Propose renaming Category:Playlist to Category:Playlist (album series) albums

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, as "Playlist" has multiple meanings. "Playlist albums" or "Playlist (album series) albums" might also work, to match similiar categories such as Category:20th Century Masters albums. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Support per nom. I actually think the proposed title makes it clearer waht it about as many thing could fall under "playlist". --Salix (talk): 19:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• After thinking about this a little more, I've decided that "Playlist (album series) albums" would be best, as it leaves no ambiguity and matches the "____ albums" precedent. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 20:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Conditional support. I will only support a move to "Category:Playlist (album series)", not to "Category:Playlist (album series) albums". — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 10:05, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Suspended deck bridges

Category:Suspended deck bridges - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete on the basis of WP:No original research.

1. Suspended deck bridge is not a bridge type. This can be verfied by searching google and google books for the full string. Most reference entries that come up refer to arch bridges with suspended decks. Some (like the first one in google books) refer to truss bridges with suspended decks.
2. There are no known compilations or lists of "suspended deck bridges". This is again verified through the google search. It can also be verified by reviewing text books that
3. Suspended-deck is a subtype of known bridge types. Arch bridges, truss bridges and suspension bridges can all have suspended decks. Each can also have the decks at some other level. Each of these types already has a category.
4. Each bridge attemped to be put into the Category:Suspended deck bridges should already be entered into the appropriate category.
5. The category was created by an editor who took text in a hatnote from the article on suspension bridges (fixed version here) to mean that this was a bridge type of its own.

Since no verifiable reference can be found that categorizes bridges as suspended deck, it is therefore original research to create a Wikipedia category. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Because this is ¢Spender1983's nomination, the burden is on ¢Spender1983 to show (not merely assert) that the name the article is original research. --Una Smith (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. The burden of WP:Verifiability is on the one that makes the edits. I have asked you to provide verification before taking this to the deletion process. WP:Verifiability and WP:No Original Research are very closely tied. If the work done by one editor is not verifiable, then you are splitting hairs whether you call it unverifiable or original research. The burden is on you to find a reliable source that categorizes bridges as Category:Suspended deck bridges. You should have done so before pulling this category out of thin air. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:28, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

*Comment. The newly created article titled Suspended deck bridge will also be nominated for deletion under WP:NOR, with the text to be moved back to its original location, the Suspension bridge article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 06:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please see proposal to move Suspension bridge types to Suspension bridge, here. --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment – there is also Category:Suspended-deck suspension bridges created recently by the same editor. Occuli (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both as invalid bridge types. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:01, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Please see this AfD too. Lugnuts (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep and merge with Category:Suspended-deck bridges. Both categories are populated. --Una Smith (talk) 19:59, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
  • This new category needs to be deleted also. The editor keeps inventing catagories without finding any scholarly sources that categorize bridges in this manner. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 20:32, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
    • The search term "suspended deck bridge" (with or without hyphen) returns 1560 hits on Google Web, 11 on Google Book, and 5 on Google Scholar. Checking just a few of those thousands of links, I find the term "suspended deck bridge" refers to Compression arch suspended-deck bridges, Truss bridges with suspended decks, Suspended-deck suspension bridges, and Self-anchored suspension bridges. This book illustrates a classification of bridges by deck type: suspended deck, mid deck, and under deck. --Una Smith (talk) 22:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - I see no issues here. Jenuk1985 | Talk 20:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - move all articles into Category:suspension bridges, move Category:Self-anchored suspension bridges, Category:Simple suspension bridges, Category:Through arch bridges into Category:suspension bridges, delete Category:Suspension bridges by type. Most people think "suspension bridges" and "Suspended-deck suspension bridges" are synonymous and many editor will place articles in the former cat. There is a need to seperate off the other types of suspension bridges which don't have suspended decks. --Salix (talk): 20:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

• Readers who know about bridges may also want to note the changes made in the last few days to the article Suspension bridge types by the same editor. Hmains (talk) 02:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)