< April 7 April 9 >

April 8

Category:Predatory open access journals

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]
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]
  • 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]
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:Coal mining in Anglesey

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge all to Category:Coal mining in Wales. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:07, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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]
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:Coal mining in Cardiff

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]
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:Literary dunces

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: listify and delete. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 18 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]
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:Computer law legislation

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Computing legislation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Computer law legislation to Category:Computer laws and statutes
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
Hmm.. good point. Perhaps we could have Category:Information technology law, with a subcat of Category:Information technology legislation? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:54, 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]
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:Apps

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". – Fayenatic London 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]
  • 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]
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]
You realize that this will now create a whole parallel tree? Which would require Category:IOS apps and Category:Blackberry apps etc. I think distinguishing between application and system software can happen within each individual OS - but I don't see the need to have a top-level tree distinguishing the two. We already have Category:Mobile business software, Category:Mobile games, Category:Mobile instant messaging clients, Category:Mobile route-planning software, Category:Mobile social software, Category:Mobile web browsers - if you go with your proposal, we will then have Category:Mobile apps as the container for all of them, and then an OS-specific cat like Category:IOS apps into which ((cl|IOS Games}] would be slotted - and then the same for all the other OSes. It adds a layer, and a ton of clutter, and almost zero value. The operating system stuff is already in sub cats. Why doesn't "software" suffice?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:00, 15 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]
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.

People's Republic of China creatives

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. – Fayenatic London 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]
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:Places in the United Kingdom

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for these otherwise unconnected twigs of category space. Oculi (talk) 18:05, 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.

Category:Betws-y-Coed

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. – Fayenatic London 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]
  • 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]
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]
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:Aberwheeler

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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

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]
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:Akbar Khan Qureshi

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: convert to article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And then nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akbar Khan Qureshi. --16:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Convert Category:Akbar Khan Qureshi to article Akbar Khan Qureshi
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

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]
Convert Category:Rambouillet Marino Sheep to article Rambouillet marino sheep
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. Ryan Vesey 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]
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:Breakfast beverages

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]
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]
  • 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]
  • 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]
"A Morning Cola Instead of Coffee?". The New York Times. January 20, 1988. Retrieved 2013-04-09. ((cite web)): Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
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]
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]
Just let you know for next time that "Delete per nomination" is a classic "argument without argument" on Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions.--DrumstickJuggler (talk) 18:33, 11 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]
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]
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.
More