The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. The category states, "These articles concern United States federal legislation that are of historic significance, but are no longer in complete effect." However, few statutes are in complete effect as many get modified over time. I think I understand the intent of this category, however. I just can't find a way to express it in a rename. Frankly, I'm afraid there's really no true reason to have this category and there's no useful standard by which articles could be added. Therefore, the articles in this category ought to be recategorized into Category:United States federal legislation or one of that category's subcategories (such as Category:United States federal labor legislation. — Markles 01:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps have a Category:United States federal legislation no longer in effect if it's possible to gather a population for it...?   David Kernow 00:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Categorise by area of law. Piccadilly 07:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This category was in existence before the subcategories of Category:United States federal legislation were created (for the most part) and it is basically useless now. Paul 16:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Could have Category:Repealed United States federal legislation Carlossuarez46 20:24, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 19:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Categories Migratory birds (Eastern hemisphere) and Migratory birds (Western hemisphere) should, I feel, be renamed. Many species in either hemisphere are to some extent migratory, but with some resident populations. These categories on the other hand appear to have been set up to contain only those species which are obligate long-distance (?trans-equatorial) migrants (i.e. Europe to sub-Saharan Africa or North to South America). The hemisphere aspect to the name is also misleading as it leaves northern Asian breeders migrating to south/south-east Asia without a category. Better terminology exists, and we should base our category names on this instead. SP-KP 23:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree completely with this, the cats are unecessary and difficult to define. jimfbleak 06:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I agree. Neotropical and Palearctic Migrants are possible alternatives but what distance qualifies as migration as opposed to local movement is arguable. Shyamal 06:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

OK, so I propose Category:Transequatorial migrant birds as our top-level category, with three subcategories for the New World, Europe/Africa and Asia/Australasia. SP-KP 17:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't know whether any cats will be satisfactory. The transequ will eliminate near arctic duck, goose and swan species like Pink-footed Goose and Whooper Swan, despite their being totally long distance migrants, and the subdivs will create problems for eg Northern Pintail which winters on both sides of the Atlantic with indistinguishable populations. What about the New World passerines, where only a handful of species cross the equator? Ruby-throated Hummingbird is a virtually total long-distance migrant, but like dozens of other species would be excluded. Just dump all the migration cats, its too difficult to define. jimfbleak 12:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename all. - TexasAndroid 18:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Based on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) several hundred pages have been renamed. However several shows - listed below - have categories associated with them that also need to be renamed according to the convention. None of the items in the category have been removed or altered. If you know of any other shows please add them here. -- Reflex Reaction ( talk)• 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Big Brother (USA) -> Category:Big Brother (US TV series)
• Category:Big Brother (UK) -> Category:Big Brother (UK TV series)
• Category:Angel (series) -> Category:Angel (TV series)
• Category:24 (television) -> Category:24 (TV series)
• Category:JAG (TV-series) -> Category:JAG (TV series)

Rename as nominator -- Reflex Reaction ( talk)• 22:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all, except for the two which do not require disambiguation. Rename those to Category:Angel and Category:JAG, respectively. - EurekaLott 23:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, including Angel and JAG. They don't require disambiguation now, but JAG and Angel can refer to other things and lead to confusion in the future if it's not clearly about a TV series. Night Gyr 01:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom and Night Gyr. - choster 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all same reasons.. unification is always good -- J-PG 18:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all, keeping things consistent also leads to easier/more effective searches. -- SSTwinrova 20:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. - TexasAndroid 19:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This adds nothing but another thing to click to. It makes seeing what is available in Category:Travel writers more difficult and thereby discourages subcategorisation of that category. Merge Bhoeble 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC). reply

• Merge per nom. It is doubtful that any other system of subcategorisation is required in this field. CalJW 20:54, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Poorly defined and impractical category, currently only contains Harry Potter. Could possibly be made into a list (if someone can be bothered). the wub "?!" 22:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Much too vague to be a category and it is highly unlikely that sensible all time worldwide figures can be produced for the old classics. Bhoeble 22:37, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 19:09, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

My original close of No Consensous was incorrect, as has been pointed out to me. For some reason my eyes kept skipping past the Delete opinion from Her Pegship below. Whatever. The final tally should be 4 delete to 2 keep, with one of the keeps being weak. That's a delete, not no consensous, so this changes. - TexasAndroid 14:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC) reply

We don't categorize films by actors, nor do we create categories to duplicate "what links here"; the creator of this category, who has also reposted the CFD'd "Category:Seagaliana" a few times, added it to articles such as victim, chokehold, and Tibetan Buddhism. Useless. Postdlf 20:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Keep please compare to Category:Hilary Duff, etc. on teh page Category:Categories by person. maybe I needed a littel guidance as to which articles go in, but now i think its streamlined. thanks for the help from User:Postdlf, User:Syrthiss and User:Halloween jack on getting it straight. this is an honest, useful contribution. -- Ghetteaux 20:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Category:Hilary Duff needs to be streamlined as well, but at least that exists as a parent for her album subcategory, and eventually song subcategory. Most of the people categories are for musicians, because we categorize albums by musician, or author, because we categorize books by author, or on people who are such significant topics that they have a number of related articles about themselves and their endeavors (such as Category:George W. Bush or Category:Bill Gates). None of those apply here. Postdlf 20:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Why not? I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just wondering what the logic is. As something of a fan of "navigation by way of category" I don't see any problem with having a category such as this, provided it only includes the films/shows he starred in. The category creator may be using it the wrong way, but isn't the idea fundamentally sound if there's enough relevant articles to be so categorised? If it's OK for a musician or author (and it most certainly is) why isn't it OK for an actor? -- kingboyk 20:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Consensus has been against categorizing films by actor, and a number of them have been deleted (see, e.g., Nicole Kidman films). My rationale is that while movies only have one director (exceptions such as Four Rooms and Sin City notwithstanding), they have many actors, and too many categories uselessly flood an article. Not quite as bad as what would happen if Tibetan Buddhism were categorized by every known practitioner, but still not a good result. There's furthermore no meaningful way to draw a dividing line as to when an actor's role in a film has become a defining trait of that film, in the manner that a book is defined in part by who wrote it, or an album by who recorded it. But let's see what other voters say... Postdlf 20:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Yes indeed, you make some excellent points. User:BD2412 makes some excellent points too so I shall abstain, but thanks for answering my question. -- kingboyk 21:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. There are some instances where the star of a group of films is about the only characteristic that people associate with those films. Seriously, how many Steven Seagal films can you identify with a director (other than the films he has directed himself). Also, he has directed a few of his own films, and since there is certainly a consensus to categorize films by director, a Steven Seagal category (or perhaps a Category:Films directed by Steven Seagal) would be appropriate for that. With the wives and the energy drink, I find that to be enough to justify this category. On the other hand, I'm biased, as Ghetteaux is like a brother to me. Cheers! BD2412 T 21:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • If you cut out the unencyclopedic lists of ingredients, Steven Seagal's Lightning Bolt is only a very brief paragraph that could easily be merged into his article. Steven Seagal Enterprises (itself just a brief article) apparently only exists to market the energy drink, so I don't see the justification for that existing separately either. Which means we're left categorizing films by actor, or justifying categories for every individual who has relatives with articles. Postdlf 01:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • yes, it is true that BDAmbramson and I are "old school homies," but I think he knows what he is talking about. reeally, this is just a matter of personal taste, as regards use of the category feature. if you are looking for a quick way to navigate all content for a particular phenom, this a great feature. "de gustibus . . ." -- Ghetteaux 12:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Postdlf Piccadilly 07:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• "...non disputandum". Delete per nom. Her Pegship 01:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 20:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. Too specific; there isn't even a demoscene musicians category yet! Use Category:Demosceners until there are enough to split off a Demoscene musicians category. -- Vossanova 18:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Standard subcategorisation. Every occupational group is subcategorised sooner or later. Bhoeble 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• delete, overcategorization is just silly. it's how we end up with single-entry cats. Night Gyr 01:14, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Too specific at the moment. vortex ^talk 11:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. - TexasAndroid 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Barely populated; incorrect name structure; incorrect capitalisation; not a standard category type as the usual practice is to have Category:Paris culture and more detailed subcategories for things like music. delete Merchbow 18:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 22:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. vortex ^talk 11:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. - TexasAndroid 18:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to match category:Cemeteries in France etc. Merchbow 17:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC). reply

• It turns out the correct category already exists, but is empty. Merchbow 17:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Category:Paris cemeteries and change articles categorized there to Category:Cemeteries in Paris. jareha ^(comments) 18:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support as Cemeteries in appears to be the norm. Mattbr30 21:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge as per nom. Bhoeble 22:40, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 00:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. - TexasAndroid 17:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Chronology and Timeline are the same thing so there is no need for separate categories. Timeline seems to be the term most used and in any case Category:Chronology is misnamed (should be plural) so I suggest merging them to Category:Timelines. JeffW 17:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Not the same thing at all, and the existing name is correct. Category:Chronology organises articles about specific periods of time, whereas Category:Timeslines contains timelines. CalJW 20:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Response The main article for a category ought to be definitive of what should be in that category and Chronology says
    • "Chronology is the science of locating events in time. An arrangement of events, from either earliest to latest or the reverse, is also called a chronology or, particularly when involving graphical elements, a timeline (for an example see Detailed logarithmic timeline)".
  • I don't seeanything there about articles being only about specific periods of time. And every page I look at under cat:Chronology is a timeline. -- JeffW 23:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • That last point is patent nonsense. There are thousands of pages in the category which are not timelines. CalJW 05:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
      • There are only 27 pages in the category, so I guess you're talking about pages within subcategories which wasn't what I was talking about. Just a clarification. -- JeffW 05:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • For the record, the Category:History by period is the category for specific periods of time. -- Sean Brunnock 13:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep category:Chronology contains all the by year album, single, film and book categories and much else. The articles in those are not timelines. Piccadilly 07:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Withdraw You are both right. There is more to this category than timelines and cat:Timelines is already a subcat. The problem is that there are timeline pages in Chronology that should be moved to the subcategory and that I can fix without bothering all of you -- JeffW 14:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Per naming conventions of other college athletic teams, e.g. Category:Oklahoma Sooners or Category:Nebraska Cornhuskers. jareha ^(comments) 17:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Oklahoma State University athletics. OK State has different nicknames for its men's and women's teams (Cowboys and Cowgirls). For a precedent for such a naming, see Category:University of Hawaii athletics, which features another school with different nicknames for men's and women's teams. — Dale Arnett 06:17, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• I agree with Dale's comment.-- Mike Selinker 05:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • So do I — updating nomination. jareha ^(comments) 20:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. - TexasAndroid 17:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Not the way things are done. Schools and higher education institutions are only put in the same category at education level. (Note that in the UK there are many schools called "College", eg Eton College, but for purposes of classification they are schools. Rename Carina22 16:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC). reply

• On second thoughts, Delete both These only exist because of the intervention of kingboyk mentioned in the nomination below, which ignored and overruled the conventional system. County level is quite detailed enough for geographical categorisation of English schools and it is all that has been done up to now with the exception of largest handful of cities - a group to which Cheltenham and Gloucester are not close to belonging. Carina22 16:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep because they are very important subcategories of Category:Cheltenham and Category:Gloucester. Renaming is fine by me in principle, but at the current time there aren't really enough blue linked schools and colleges in Cheltenham and Gloucester to justify having seperate categories for schools in Cheltenham, colleges in Cheltenham, etc. This is all about creating self contained category groups for these towns and has nothing to do with politics so I'd be grateful if you'd tone down the personal comments, thank you. -- kingboyk 16:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Further comment. I concede that University of Gloucestershire probably doesn't belong in the schools/college category, which may have been the catalyst for this renaming proposal. I maintain however that it's not logically incorrect to include sixth form colleges and colleges of further education in the same by-town category as schools. -- kingboyk 16:55, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• See further down where I have withdrawn the related proposal and for comments on how it seems to be the norm to categorise by both type and location. I therefore believe the deletion proposal is without foundation; thoughts and comments awaited on whether to rename or not. -- kingboyk 17:39, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It isn't normal to subcategorise by the norm to categorise by both type and location regardless of the size of the location. Cheltenham and Gloucester are too small for this. Some might say they shouldn't have categories at all. Merchbow 17:46, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • They might indeed, but they would probably not be grasping how useful categories are for navigation. -- kingboyk 20:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, it most definitely is normal to categorise by location at least down as far as county level, and there's some precedent for categorisation down to town level (and why wouldn't there be? Categorising by type of school makes far less sense to me than categorising by location). There's an entire category tree devoted to schools by region in the UK - see for example Category:Schools in Sefton --> Category:Schools in Merseyside --> Category:Schools in England --> Category:Schools in the United Kingdom --> Category:Schools by country --> Category:Schools. The main reason of course is to keep the Cheltenham category tidy as a supercategory, with the individual articles subcategorised by topic. Now, what policy does that break, and why is it doing anybody any harm? -- kingboyk 20:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - articles on school, colleges etc could be put under Category:Education in Gloucester or Category:Education in Cheltenham; or, failing that, directly under Category:Gloucester and Category:Cheltenham so long as those categories are not too big. They could still be sorted by type by county. TheGrappler 18:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Category:Schools and colleges in Cheltenham is a subcategory not only of Category:Cheltenham but also of Category:Schools in Gloucestershire. If it were renamed Category:Education in Cheltenham (please don't advocate deleting it when a renaming would suffice - I'd just have to go back and add the same articles to the new category, a job a renaming bot could do; and see the WP:POINT reason for the nomination being to delete rather than rename) then each school would have to be added seperately to Category:Schools in Gloucestershire, or some extra navigational hops would be introduced. The way I have done it is neat, tidy and logical and probably nobody would even have noticed if I hadn't dared to nominate a public (private) school category for nomination. -- kingboyk 20:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete There was no precedent or consensus for the categorisation as I named it, although there is precedent for (and a good logical argument for) sorting by locality. I have therefore recategorised pre precedent and withdraw my opposition. I've recategorised relevant articles and speedy deleted the categories listed here per CSD G7 ( User:Carina22 made a non-janitorial edit to the Cheltenham cat but also nominated it for deletion). -- kingboyk 11:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 18:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I propose spelling out two abbreviations—

Category:BJP leaders → Category:Bharatiya Janata Party leaders

Category:INC leaders → Category:Indian National Congress leaders

— to avoid any potential ambiguity.- choster 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. -- Vossanova 19:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. V0rt3x 11:18, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:39, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 06:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn. - TexasAndroid 19:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Seems more logical and less elitist to organise by geography. Category:Schools in Gloucestershire already exists with at present 2 geographical subcategories created by me for Cheltenham and Gloucester. -- kingboyk 15:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Politically correct nonsense. Category:Public schools in England has 38 local subcategories and Category:Grammar schools in England has six. These are sure to be recreated. Emptying them in advance of the nomination was an improper attempt to manipulate the outcome of the debate. Carina22 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Pardon me? I emptied them because they were mostly duplicate entries from the other categories. There are so few that putting them back in would take 5 minutes at most and I undertake to put them back if the community decides to retain them. Now, let's forget political correctness and ask, are Gloucestershire schools better organised by location or whether they are public or private (or possibly both)? -- kingboyk 16:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Naturally. These cats are subcats of a consistent categorisation scheme for schools in England. No reason Gloucestershire should be any different. In fact, it makes it far more awkward for the user if it is. -- Necrothesp 17:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'd only ask that if the community decides to keep these, that the categorisation by town be allowed to stay too. It makes far more sense to me to categorise by town than type, but I have no strong objection to having both. -- kingboyk 17:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Withdrawn. Upon further examination, it seems to be the norm to classify by both type ( Category:Schools in the United Kingdom by type) and location ( Category:Schools in England, Category:Schools in Merseyside and subcategories). -- kingboyk 17:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 18:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Suggesting change as per naming style used at Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Longhair 10:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose This was a renaming proposal but now both exist. I agree with the general principle, but tourism categories are broader than visitor attractions categories as they also contain things like hotels, airports, tourism authorities and holiday operators. I have created category:Visitor attractions in Paris as a subcategory of Category:Tourism in Paris. Merchbow 18:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support Wikipedia is not a travel guide, see WP:NOT. Hotels and holiday operators are not appropriate here. -- JeffW 18:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support per precedent and the comments of User:JeffW. -- kingboyk 20:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Tourism is a standard category. See Category:Tourism by country. Such categories belong in Wikipedia because tourism is a major economic sector; the incidental usefulness to tourists doesn't delegitimise them. Bhoeble 22:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Merchbow. Postdlf 17:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 18:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Suggesting change as per naming style used at Category:Visitor attractions by city. -- Longhair 10:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nominator. Merchbow 18:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. - choster 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. -- Ter e nc e Ong 10:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 18:19, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

changes USAF from acronym to full name, change "Thunderbird" to "Thunderbird pilot" - little more specific Nobunaga24 05:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment, why not Category:United States Air Force Thunderbird pilots? jareha ^(comments) 18:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The name of the team is Thunderbirds, so it's analagous to Dallas Cowboys players. Night Gyr 01:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Fair enough. Rename. jareha ^(comments) 02:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 04:01, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 18:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a follow up to the nomination of category:English MPs which someone made a week ago. The category needs a name which reflects what it is for (ie not MPs who of Scottish ethnicity or sit for Scottish constituencies) and it also needs to be distinct for Category:Members of the Scottish Parliament, which is for the current Parliament, which was created a few years ago after nearly 300 years during which Scotland didn't have a parliament. Carina22 04:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. I had been unhappy with this name myself for some time, but just could not decide what it should be renamed to. The main issue causing my hesitancy was that being a unicameral legislature its members were both commoners (titled "Commissioners", not "MPs") and prelates and nobles. I wasn't sure if this cat was meant to hold all three types, but I suppose that the new name allows us to categorise all three of the Three Estates within it. -- Mais oui! 12:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Mattbr30 21:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. CalJW 20:57, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:40, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom, seems eminently sensible. -- Cactus.man ✍ 18:09, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and per Mais oui!. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. - TexasAndroid 19:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't think it's appropriate to categorize articles on the basis of internal Wikipedia matters like whether they have logo galleries or not...and even if consensus here is that it's worth keeping, it would still have to be renamed for capitalization to Category:American television stations with logo galleries. I suggest deletion, but I'm willing to listen to a convincing argument otherwise. Bearcat 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Listify, but not to article space: preferably to a subpage of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television Stations, otherwise to user space, most sensibly that of creator User:WIKISCRIPPS2005. Samaritan 03:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unencyclopedic. Hawkestone 04:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Listify, per Samaritan. jareha ^(comments) 18:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete self-reference. Piccadilly 07:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Limited-access roads. - TexasAndroid 19:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC) reply

Change name to take into account European usage. SilkTork 00:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Hawkestone 04:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Expressways and motorways Category:Limited-access highways Category:Limited-access roads to cover more? Reading the pages, it seems that freeways are included in expressways, and not vice versa, and not all motorways are freeways. -- William Allen Simpson 06:48, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment. Freeway and motorway are the same thing - these are roads that have no traffic lights, crossings or private access. Expressway is something different. Expressway is equal to a dual carraigeway in which traffic lights, crossings and private access is allowable. It may be the case that articles within the category need sorting if they are talking about non-freeway roads. SilkTork 08:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

According to Motorway, "Traffic lights are not permitted (except at toll booths and certain interchanges)". That's like an expressway here in Michigan, and unsurprisingly there already is the subcategory Category:Freeways and expressways in Michigan. The category title should describe what's actually in this category. -- William Allen Simpson 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment Since there are so many terms used (highway, freeway, expressway, motorway, etc.), couldn't they all be grouped under one general term which would describe them all, e.g. "Limited access roads"? -- Vossanova 20:00, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I hear what you are saying. But the terms Freeway and Motorway mean exactly that, and are readily understood in English speaking countries. Limited access is not a term used in Europe and people would not think of a motorway. SilkTork 23:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

After reading most of the pages, I'd say you are incorrect (at least as far as the current documentation). That's not what the pages describe. The words you are using are very UK specific, not "European" at all. It's my brother that's the civil engineer, and I can ask him this weekend, but I'm changing my vote to agree with Vossanova. -- William Allen Simpson 23:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Freeway is USA, Canada and Australia, Motorway is nearly all other English speaking countries. Other names used, such as Autoroute or Autobahn are for non-English countries, and people from these countries when being taught English are taught either Freeway or Motorway. Limited Access is a term that is not used in the current definitions of either Freeway: "A freeway ... is a multi-lane highway (road) designed for high-speed travel by large numbers of vehicles, and having no traffic lights, stop signs, nor other regulations requiring vehicles to stop for cross-traffic." or Motorway: "A motorway (in the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and some other Commonwealth nations) is both a type of road and a classification. Motorways are highways designed to carry a large volume of traffic where a normal road would not suffice or would be unsafe, usually between cities. In the UK they are predominantly dual-carriageway roads, usually with three lanes in each direction, although four-lane and two-lane carriageways are also common, and all have grade-separated access." Though it may sound like I am opposing the suggestion, I am not. I like the idea of having a universal term to cover Freeway and Motorway. I am just not sure that Limited Access is the right term - just as I am not sure that Freeway by itself is the right term. Some expressway routes in USA and dual carraigeway routes in the UK are limited access, but do have crossings and traffic lights so do not qualify as Freeways or Motorways. We could debate various terms to cover what a Freeway/Motorway actually is and decide that Freeway is the most appropriate, which brings us back to the start. So, I'm not actually objecting to alternative terms, just expressing strong doubt that Limited access roads is a clearer term than Freeways and motorways. SilkTork 08:04, 31 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps make all the various names redirect to a Category:Limited-access roads, if "limited access" is what they all share in common. (By itself, "Limited-access roads" seems a category not likely to be on the tips of people's brains.) Suggest hyphenation is used, as the category would not be addressing access roads with limitations. Regards, David Kernow 00:47, 1 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• As per SilkTork above, "Limited-access roads" or the like too obscure. Choose one of "Freeways", "Highways", "Motorways", etc. and have all others redirect to it (and perhaps add brief explanation at top of page)...?  Regards, David Kernow 17:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I believe choosing one of the commonly used terms will just lead to more confusion and arguing. A term like "limited-access roads" is neutral because it's not commonly used, and is intended to be more of a definition than a term. -- Vossanova 19:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Well, if the choice became "Limited-access roads" plus subcategories "Freeways", "Highways", etc or delete, I'd vote for "Limited-access roads" plus subcategories. Regards, David Kernow 18:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment unfortunately different terms seem to be used for a single concept; not just British-USA difference, but regionally in the USA Expressway, Throughway (Thruway), Freeway, etc. and even some in California would not regard any toll-road (Turnpike someplaces) a Freeway regardless of its limitation of access. Carlossuarez46 20:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC) reply

• Yes, same with Michigan. Sounds like Category:Limited-access roads plus subcategories is the most neutral wording. -- William Allen Simpson 18:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.