The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Split - per other similar CFDs. The USSR and Russia are separate entities and so these cats should be split to reflect that. This will result in some articles getting two categories instead of one but we should strive for accuracy.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Split. Per nominator. - 04:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:James Bond vehicles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - with the exception of
Disco Volante (ship) this category is capturing real-world vehicles that appeared in Bond films. I have serious reservations about mixing fact and fiction in this manner in the categorization structure. Especially with the prevalence of
product placement in films and television in recent decades, this could lead to many fictional categories being placed on real-world articles.
List of James Bond vehicles captures this information for those interested.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:47, 23 October 2008 (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:Oprah
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Because while she is known informally as Oprah as an encyclopedia we should be a bit more formal than the common parlance.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:39, 23 October 2008 (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:Falsettos
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category is compiled almost exclusively through original research. I haven't looked through all of the articles but the many that I have looked at don't even mention falsetto use in the article's body. My suspicion is that this is a fan created list that is based on personal opinions rather than actual verifiable facts. Furthermore, falsetto use is not unique. Most male singers use it to some extent within their music. Women do as well (a fact ignored by this category) but not as often.
Nrswanson (
talk)
22:13, 23 October 2008 (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:GMA Artist Center
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Fancrufty category that segregates
Category:Filipino actors according to the television network where they are currently in contract with. This is similar to previously deleted categories about "GMA Celebrities" and "ABS-CBN Celebrities".
Starczamora (
talk)
22:09, 23 October 2008 (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:Great West Conference
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 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:Jan Matejko
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - category is unnecessary for the eponymous article and paintings subcat. The gallery article is slated to be moved to Commons.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:59, 23 October 2008 (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:Man Ray
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete -
small category consisting almost entirely of image files. Category is not required for the main article and the films subcat.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:57, 23 October 2008 (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:Babe Ruth Award
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 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:Hank Aaron Award
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 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:Jack Graney Award
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 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:Warren Spahn Award
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 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:Wayne Gretzky
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 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:Bo Jackson
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - most of the contents are for seasons or series in which Jackson played, which is a horrible basis for categorization. Such categorization could lead to literally hundreds of similar categories per article for each player involved. Absent that material, there are three remaining articles, all of which are well linked through Jackson's article and each other.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I took the liberty of clearing such entries from Michael Jordan and Jackie Robinson's categories. I left this one as is for purposes of the CFD.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:04, 23 October 2008 (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:Coast to Coast AM affiliates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing radio stations by individual syndicated programs that they carry is a pretty clear
WP:OCAT violation, per past CFDs on similar categories. Some of these stations, in fact, only carry syndicated programming, which could potentially add a dozen or more such categories to each article if this precedent were left to stand. That said, a list of affiliate stations, either in the main
Coast to Coast AM article or as a separate
List of Coast to Coast AM affiliates, is absolutely acceptable and valid. Propose that we listify this and then delete the category.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:07, 23 October 2008 (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:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic
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.
With the addition of Norway, there could be a better term with a local flavor for that category. I looked at the article and was not sure. An alternative might be to upmerge to
Category:Highways in Norway but I'm not convinced that is completely accurate. I should also add that more work in this area needs to happen over time.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)reply
comment Another possibility is 'access via interchange roads' which encompasses all the various local specific names used for these roads. 'Freeways' does seem to be a world-wide-term.
Hmains (
talk)
17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)reply
However, freeway does appear to be the main article with breakouts for the other names used in different countries. Note well that renaming the parent category does not dictate the naming of the subcategories when the local name is different. Also 'access via interchange road' gets zero google hits so it is also not used anywhere.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename but NOT as nom -- Freeway is an American term and carries the implication that the roads are free, not
toll roads. The UK term is
motorway, but there are also some trunk roads that fit the description. The French have autoroutes (mostly subject to tolls); the Germans autobahns; etc. The present term is clumsy and unsatisfactory, but this Americanism is not the right solution. We certainly need a global category covering this kind of road, but I am not sure what it should be, possibly the French term Autoroute, which would have the merit of saving us from turf wars between English-speaking countries. For each country, the subcategory should follow national usage
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I pretty much share your feelings on the issue - but I do not think that using a French word is a way to make a lot of people happy! Also, "freeway" has both definitions. --
EliyakT·
C02:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7114:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree that the existing name is bad; I've never liked it at all. However, as the terminology for these varies so much from country to country, I'm not at all clear on what would be the best name for the international container parent — I think we may need to refer this to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways for an extended discussion, because I think a resolution may need more discussion and more time than CFD really has the capability to devote to it. No !vote, just $0.02 for the pot.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I would not object to a new discussion that might get more attention from the informed road geeks. So I would not object to a close here with a pointer to the new discussion.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree with Peterkingiron about the American definition of "freeway." I think the technical American term (to include both free and toll roads without stoplights or stopsigns) is "Limited-access highway". I wonder if that term would be understood by non-US audiences as well. -
Stepheng3 (
talk)
05:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
A limited access highway can mean "anything from a city street to which the maintaining authority limits driveway access to a freeway". So If someone wants to move these under
Category:Limited-access roads by country, that may be possible. This will probably requires some additional cleanup since some articles need to be moved or placed in new categories, but that is not an impediment. Also the current introduction for
Category:Limited-access roads says "This category is for highways with full control of access and no cross traffic. It is not for limited access roads, as that is an ambiguous term." Kind or odd given the category name. Again pointing to the need to cleanup this area.
An interesting source for this discussion is
The Free Dictionary which includes freeway as a type of
expressway which is true since it is an expressway with additional restrictions. So maybe a better choice would be to look at
Category:Expressway as the parent, with renames on the move in as needed. It should be easy to change this since it would only be a few high level categories changing parents for the most part. I'll try to clean up some introductions and reparent the US to see how it looks for comments if there are no short term objections. The would should be easy to undo if it does not help. I also created
List of road types by features to try and put a different perspective on this. Not sure if that helps this discussion, but it does start to point out the differences that can exist between countries.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
No go. In the US expressways lack full control of access and have cross traffic which means that they are not freeways. So expressways are not included in the above categories unless that is the title of the road and it meets freeway standards.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Not really. Any freeway can also be described as an expressway. Additionally, there are exceptions to many systems that are overwhelmingly freeways, such as Interstates which don't always meet the definition of a freeway because they run on surface streets or have driveways. So
List of expressway systems would actually be more accurate.
Synchronism (
talk)
23:48, 25 October 2008 (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:Eastern Orthodox churches
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.
Oppose -- Church is a term with a variety of meanings: denomination or church body; church building; or a Christian community. The original meaning is the latter. This is an ambiguity that is inherent in the word, and it will be difficult to devise a water-tight categorisation scheme to cover all eventualities.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7114:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename. This is a good idea. We need to at least try to distinguish church buildings from church organizations, and this is a good way to do it. It's also supported by the previous CfD. It may not be a perfect solution, but I just can't see any benefit to keeping the status quo.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:33, 24 October 2008 (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:Political scandals by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Discuss for uniformity - these categories are representative of the three current naming formats in the parent
Category:Political scandals by country. We should pick one and rename all categories to match. Once a name format is decided upon I'll nominate the remaining non-compliant categories for rename.
Otto4711 (
talk)
18:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - "Political scandals of Country Xyz" is definitely out - use of "of Country Xyz" is reserved for a limited range of things. Beyond that, I'm not quite sure which is best, though I'm leaning toward "Political scandals in Country Xyz". Whatever we settle on, I think we need to take account of the fact that many of these scandals are transnational, that is, they involve more than one country. A perfect case in point:
Category:Angolagate, which is currently listed under
Category:Political scandals in France, but clearly pertains just as much to Angola (though we don't currently have a
Category:Political scandals in Angola). (As an aside: perhaps we should consider creating
Category:Transnational political scandals.)
Cgingold (
talk)
20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Further comment: Having given this some more thought, I'm inclined to rule out "Fooian political scandals," because that seems to convey the subtle implication that the scandals in question "belong" to that country -- but as I've pointed out, many scandals involve more than one country. So that appears to leave us with "Political scandals in Country Xyz" -- unless somebody can come up with another option.
Cgingold (
talk)
09:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7114:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
"Political scandals in" is probably the best option, though all of them have their downsides. I don't think using "Fooian" is a good option here since the scandal might be "in" a country but involve non-Fooian people or stuff.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:30, 24 October 2008 (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:Historical novelists of whodunnits
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 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:Attractions in the Netherlands
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. If someone wants to then remove the ones that are already subcatted, please feel free.
Kbdank7113:27, 28 October 2008 (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:Atomic garden
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 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:Ongoing trends
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 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:Soviet and Russian intelligence agencies
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.
Rename and split per nom -- as was done with some other joint Russian/Soviet cats a while back. I'm sure the nominator will take care to divide up the articles properly.
Cgingold (
talk)
11:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
If split then into three parts: Imperial Russia (
Okhrana), Soviet Union and Russia. Mixing Russian Empire and today's Russia together is much worse then keeping Soviet/Russian topics together. This should apply to military categories listed above too.
Pavel Vozenilek (
talk)
21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Categories for articles pertaining to Imperial Russia can be created without "pre-approval" here. I would make them sub-cats of the Russian categories.
Cgingold (
talk)
22:12, 24 October 2008 (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.
Hebrew centuries
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 on changing to en-dash, but I will rename to close the spaces around the hyphens. As a purely cosmetic and proper usage issue, I tend to favor the en-dash. However, I think the issue of difficulty in reproducing it is a legitimate one for all the poor devils that use Windows, since it's relatively tricky in that OS, and the way category redirects work buggers up what is typically an easy redirect solution for articles. Clearly, this is an issue that needs to be discussed and resolved with some sort of policy consensus since we've had discussions go all three ways (use en-dash; use hyphen; no consensus) in the past 2 months or so. Hopefully the discussion started at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style can begin to resolve the issue.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose use of non-standard keyboard characters in category names as a barrier to navigation. Several recent CFDs rejected the notion of using the n-dash. Rename to close the spacing.
Otto4711 (
talk)
03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. Perhaps the anti-
WP:DASHers would accept it if there was a bot which would enforce the soft redirects? (I'm not sure where the appropriate place to obtain consensus on that bot would be.) —
Arthur Rubin(talk)13:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
There were, but only if the redirect was created by an admin. Don't know if any are still running. The last discussion I recall was maybe 2 years ago.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I was considering methodology, and decided any fully automated bot would have to ensure that the redirect was at least approved by an admin, for obvious reasons. I didn't look into it futher, because I'm not really a bot designer, and I'd need to know what could be done before I could suggest would should be done. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename - there's no excuse for this kind of ugliness even in category names. Though we ought to establish what the situation is with these cat redirect bots. I was pretty sure they were still active - I recall seeing one at work a month or two ago (and it seemed to work on a category I - a non-admin - had redirected, although I don't know if I was just redoing something an admin had previously done). If they aren't active then they certainly should be.--
Kotniski (
talk)
16:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename, even if redirected (unless, per otto, to fix spacing). Nobody is going to be confused at the current category names. What's the point of having two categories with a redirect to enforce a guideline? --
Kbdank7113:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Not "to enforce a guideline", but to ensure good writing style that is easier and more pleasant to read. And not two categories, just one category and a redirect to it.--
Kotniski (
talk)
13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Sure it is to enforce a guideline. That's the reason for the rename: per
WP:DASH year range guidelines. As for easier to read, let me ask you a question: Is
Category:Hebrew years 5500 - 5599 really more difficult to read than
Category:Hebrew years 5500–5599? Remembering that this is a couple of words at the bottom of an article, not anywhere else within the article itself. And yes, it will be two categories, that's how category redirects work. The original one will be emptied but not deleted, and {{Category redirect}} will be added as the category text. --
Kbdank7113:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I find it easier to read (and presumably most readers do as well, since this is the established convention in English). The fact that it's at the bottom of the article or anywhere else is no excuse for not caring about what and how we write.--
Kotniski (
talk)
14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Ok. I find it just as easy to read if it's a hyphen or en dash. But I find it easier to type a hyphen, which comes in handy if I'm going to add an article to the category. So I'll just stick with my oppose. --
Kbdank7114:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose application of
WP:DASH to categories. (Hence opposing "en dash'.) The presumptions in place don't seem to take categories into consideration. -
jc3709:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. As mentioned in the discussion referred to by jc37, there is a bot that (allegedly) handles category redirects efficiently. This being the case, there is no reason why the dash/hyphen problem can't be solved by redirects just as it is for article titles; and this would seem to resolve all the objections raised by the opposers (no-one would ever have to type a dash if they don't want to).--
Kotniski (
talk)
15:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Split - per other similar CFDs. The USSR and Russia are separate entities and so these cats should be split to reflect that. This will result in some articles getting two categories instead of one but we should strive for accuracy.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Split. Per nominator. - 04:56, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:James Bond vehicles
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - with the exception of
Disco Volante (ship) this category is capturing real-world vehicles that appeared in Bond films. I have serious reservations about mixing fact and fiction in this manner in the categorization structure. Especially with the prevalence of
product placement in films and television in recent decades, this could lead to many fictional categories being placed on real-world articles.
List of James Bond vehicles captures this information for those interested.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:47, 23 October 2008 (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:Oprah
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Because while she is known informally as Oprah as an encyclopedia we should be a bit more formal than the common parlance.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:39, 23 October 2008 (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:Falsettos
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category is compiled almost exclusively through original research. I haven't looked through all of the articles but the many that I have looked at don't even mention falsetto use in the article's body. My suspicion is that this is a fan created list that is based on personal opinions rather than actual verifiable facts. Furthermore, falsetto use is not unique. Most male singers use it to some extent within their music. Women do as well (a fact ignored by this category) but not as often.
Nrswanson (
talk)
22:13, 23 October 2008 (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:GMA Artist Center
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Fancrufty category that segregates
Category:Filipino actors according to the television network where they are currently in contract with. This is similar to previously deleted categories about "GMA Celebrities" and "ABS-CBN Celebrities".
Starczamora (
talk)
22:09, 23 October 2008 (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:Great West Conference
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 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:Jan Matejko
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - category is unnecessary for the eponymous article and paintings subcat. The gallery article is slated to be moved to Commons.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:59, 23 October 2008 (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:Man Ray
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete -
small category consisting almost entirely of image files. Category is not required for the main article and the films subcat.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:57, 23 October 2008 (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:Babe Ruth Award
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 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:Hank Aaron Award
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 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:Jack Graney Award
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 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:Warren Spahn Award
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 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:Wayne Gretzky
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 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:Bo Jackson
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete - most of the contents are for seasons or series in which Jackson played, which is a horrible basis for categorization. Such categorization could lead to literally hundreds of similar categories per article for each player involved. Absent that material, there are three remaining articles, all of which are well linked through Jackson's article and each other.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I took the liberty of clearing such entries from Michael Jordan and Jackie Robinson's categories. I left this one as is for purposes of the CFD.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:04, 23 October 2008 (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:Coast to Coast AM affiliates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing radio stations by individual syndicated programs that they carry is a pretty clear
WP:OCAT violation, per past CFDs on similar categories. Some of these stations, in fact, only carry syndicated programming, which could potentially add a dozen or more such categories to each article if this precedent were left to stand. That said, a list of affiliate stations, either in the main
Coast to Coast AM article or as a separate
List of Coast to Coast AM affiliates, is absolutely acceptable and valid. Propose that we listify this and then delete the category.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:07, 23 October 2008 (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:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic
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.
With the addition of Norway, there could be a better term with a local flavor for that category. I looked at the article and was not sure. An alternative might be to upmerge to
Category:Highways in Norway but I'm not convinced that is completely accurate. I should also add that more work in this area needs to happen over time.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)reply
comment Another possibility is 'access via interchange roads' which encompasses all the various local specific names used for these roads. 'Freeways' does seem to be a world-wide-term.
Hmains (
talk)
17:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)reply
However, freeway does appear to be the main article with breakouts for the other names used in different countries. Note well that renaming the parent category does not dictate the naming of the subcategories when the local name is different. Also 'access via interchange road' gets zero google hits so it is also not used anywhere.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:50, 19 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename but NOT as nom -- Freeway is an American term and carries the implication that the roads are free, not
toll roads. The UK term is
motorway, but there are also some trunk roads that fit the description. The French have autoroutes (mostly subject to tolls); the Germans autobahns; etc. The present term is clumsy and unsatisfactory, but this Americanism is not the right solution. We certainly need a global category covering this kind of road, but I am not sure what it should be, possibly the French term Autoroute, which would have the merit of saving us from turf wars between English-speaking countries. For each country, the subcategory should follow national usage
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:52, 22 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I pretty much share your feelings on the issue - but I do not think that using a French word is a way to make a lot of people happy! Also, "freeway" has both definitions. --
EliyakT·
C02:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7114:55, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree that the existing name is bad; I've never liked it at all. However, as the terminology for these varies so much from country to country, I'm not at all clear on what would be the best name for the international container parent — I think we may need to refer this to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways for an extended discussion, because I think a resolution may need more discussion and more time than CFD really has the capability to devote to it. No !vote, just $0.02 for the pot.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I would not object to a new discussion that might get more attention from the informed road geeks. So I would not object to a close here with a pointer to the new discussion.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
22:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I agree with Peterkingiron about the American definition of "freeway." I think the technical American term (to include both free and toll roads without stoplights or stopsigns) is "Limited-access highway". I wonder if that term would be understood by non-US audiences as well. -
Stepheng3 (
talk)
05:32, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
A limited access highway can mean "anything from a city street to which the maintaining authority limits driveway access to a freeway". So If someone wants to move these under
Category:Limited-access roads by country, that may be possible. This will probably requires some additional cleanup since some articles need to be moved or placed in new categories, but that is not an impediment. Also the current introduction for
Category:Limited-access roads says "This category is for highways with full control of access and no cross traffic. It is not for limited access roads, as that is an ambiguous term." Kind or odd given the category name. Again pointing to the need to cleanup this area.
An interesting source for this discussion is
The Free Dictionary which includes freeway as a type of
expressway which is true since it is an expressway with additional restrictions. So maybe a better choice would be to look at
Category:Expressway as the parent, with renames on the move in as needed. It should be easy to change this since it would only be a few high level categories changing parents for the most part. I'll try to clean up some introductions and reparent the US to see how it looks for comments if there are no short term objections. The would should be easy to undo if it does not help. I also created
List of road types by features to try and put a different perspective on this. Not sure if that helps this discussion, but it does start to point out the differences that can exist between countries.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:30, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
No go. In the US expressways lack full control of access and have cross traffic which means that they are not freeways. So expressways are not included in the above categories unless that is the title of the road and it meets freeway standards.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Not really. Any freeway can also be described as an expressway. Additionally, there are exceptions to many systems that are overwhelmingly freeways, such as Interstates which don't always meet the definition of a freeway because they run on surface streets or have driveways. So
List of expressway systems would actually be more accurate.
Synchronism (
talk)
23:48, 25 October 2008 (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:Eastern Orthodox churches
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.
Oppose -- Church is a term with a variety of meanings: denomination or church body; church building; or a Christian community. The original meaning is the latter. This is an ambiguity that is inherent in the word, and it will be difficult to devise a water-tight categorisation scheme to cover all eventualities.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7114:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename. This is a good idea. We need to at least try to distinguish church buildings from church organizations, and this is a good way to do it. It's also supported by the previous CfD. It may not be a perfect solution, but I just can't see any benefit to keeping the status quo.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:33, 24 October 2008 (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:Political scandals by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Discuss for uniformity - these categories are representative of the three current naming formats in the parent
Category:Political scandals by country. We should pick one and rename all categories to match. Once a name format is decided upon I'll nominate the remaining non-compliant categories for rename.
Otto4711 (
talk)
18:40, 16 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - "Political scandals of Country Xyz" is definitely out - use of "of Country Xyz" is reserved for a limited range of things. Beyond that, I'm not quite sure which is best, though I'm leaning toward "Political scandals in Country Xyz". Whatever we settle on, I think we need to take account of the fact that many of these scandals are transnational, that is, they involve more than one country. A perfect case in point:
Category:Angolagate, which is currently listed under
Category:Political scandals in France, but clearly pertains just as much to Angola (though we don't currently have a
Category:Political scandals in Angola). (As an aside: perhaps we should consider creating
Category:Transnational political scandals.)
Cgingold (
talk)
20:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Further comment: Having given this some more thought, I'm inclined to rule out "Fooian political scandals," because that seems to convey the subtle implication that the scandals in question "belong" to that country -- but as I've pointed out, many scandals involve more than one country. So that appears to leave us with "Political scandals in Country Xyz" -- unless somebody can come up with another option.
Cgingold (
talk)
09:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Kbdank7114:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
"Political scandals in" is probably the best option, though all of them have their downsides. I don't think using "Fooian" is a good option here since the scandal might be "in" a country but involve non-Fooian people or stuff.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:30, 24 October 2008 (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:Historical novelists of whodunnits
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 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:Attractions in the Netherlands
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. If someone wants to then remove the ones that are already subcatted, please feel free.
Kbdank7113:27, 28 October 2008 (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:Atomic garden
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 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:Ongoing trends
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 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:Soviet and Russian intelligence agencies
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.
Rename and split per nom -- as was done with some other joint Russian/Soviet cats a while back. I'm sure the nominator will take care to divide up the articles properly.
Cgingold (
talk)
11:26, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
If split then into three parts: Imperial Russia (
Okhrana), Soviet Union and Russia. Mixing Russian Empire and today's Russia together is much worse then keeping Soviet/Russian topics together. This should apply to military categories listed above too.
Pavel Vozenilek (
talk)
21:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Categories for articles pertaining to Imperial Russia can be created without "pre-approval" here. I would make them sub-cats of the Russian categories.
Cgingold (
talk)
22:12, 24 October 2008 (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.
Hebrew centuries
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 on changing to en-dash, but I will rename to close the spaces around the hyphens. As a purely cosmetic and proper usage issue, I tend to favor the en-dash. However, I think the issue of difficulty in reproducing it is a legitimate one for all the poor devils that use Windows, since it's relatively tricky in that OS, and the way category redirects work buggers up what is typically an easy redirect solution for articles. Clearly, this is an issue that needs to be discussed and resolved with some sort of policy consensus since we've had discussions go all three ways (use en-dash; use hyphen; no consensus) in the past 2 months or so. Hopefully the discussion started at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style can begin to resolve the issue.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose use of non-standard keyboard characters in category names as a barrier to navigation. Several recent CFDs rejected the notion of using the n-dash. Rename to close the spacing.
Otto4711 (
talk)
03:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. Perhaps the anti-
WP:DASHers would accept it if there was a bot which would enforce the soft redirects? (I'm not sure where the appropriate place to obtain consensus on that bot would be.) —
Arthur Rubin(talk)13:58, 23 October 2008 (UTC)reply
There were, but only if the redirect was created by an admin. Don't know if any are still running. The last discussion I recall was maybe 2 years ago.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
05:07, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I was considering methodology, and decided any fully automated bot would have to ensure that the redirect was at least approved by an admin, for obvious reasons. I didn't look into it futher, because I'm not really a bot designer, and I'd need to know what could be done before I could suggest would should be done. —
Arthur Rubin(talk)13:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Rename - there's no excuse for this kind of ugliness even in category names. Though we ought to establish what the situation is with these cat redirect bots. I was pretty sure they were still active - I recall seeing one at work a month or two ago (and it seemed to work on a category I - a non-admin - had redirected, although I don't know if I was just redoing something an admin had previously done). If they aren't active then they certainly should be.--
Kotniski (
talk)
16:27, 24 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose rename, even if redirected (unless, per otto, to fix spacing). Nobody is going to be confused at the current category names. What's the point of having two categories with a redirect to enforce a guideline? --
Kbdank7113:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Not "to enforce a guideline", but to ensure good writing style that is easier and more pleasant to read. And not two categories, just one category and a redirect to it.--
Kotniski (
talk)
13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Sure it is to enforce a guideline. That's the reason for the rename: per
WP:DASH year range guidelines. As for easier to read, let me ask you a question: Is
Category:Hebrew years 5500 - 5599 really more difficult to read than
Category:Hebrew years 5500–5599? Remembering that this is a couple of words at the bottom of an article, not anywhere else within the article itself. And yes, it will be two categories, that's how category redirects work. The original one will be emptied but not deleted, and {{Category redirect}} will be added as the category text. --
Kbdank7113:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
I find it easier to read (and presumably most readers do as well, since this is the established convention in English). The fact that it's at the bottom of the article or anywhere else is no excuse for not caring about what and how we write.--
Kotniski (
talk)
14:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Ok. I find it just as easy to read if it's a hyphen or en dash. But I find it easier to type a hyphen, which comes in handy if I'm going to add an article to the category. So I'll just stick with my oppose. --
Kbdank7114:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose application of
WP:DASH to categories. (Hence opposing "en dash'.) The presumptions in place don't seem to take categories into consideration. -
jc3709:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. As mentioned in the discussion referred to by jc37, there is a bot that (allegedly) handles category redirects efficiently. This being the case, there is no reason why the dash/hyphen problem can't be solved by redirects just as it is for article titles; and this would seem to resolve all the objections raised by the opposers (no-one would ever have to type a dash if they don't want to).--
Kotniski (
talk)
15:43, 29 October 2008 (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.