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: Category only used by one editor and I don't think that person was using it correctly. An expert on U.S. Roads would be asked to write about transportation concepts and theories, not a route description for a Tennessee state highway. There are better ways to grab the attention of a
WP:USRD editor than this one. –
Fredddie™23:56, 22 July 2019 (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:English-language television stations in the United States
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.
Comment then the non-specialty channels have to go elsewhere (where?). And someone has to determine what is a specialty channel and what is not. I wouldn't call CNN a specialty channel. --
mfb (
talk)
20:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose. Nominator is correct that there's a problem here, relating to the constant popular fuzzification of the actual distinctions between television "stations", "channels" and "networks" — those three terms properly mean different things, but get muddled and fuddled and duddled up with each other in common usage all the time anyway. However, there's a much larger problem than just this category alone: the parent ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:English-language television stations directly contains 68 articles, and has sibling categories for 10 other countries besides the United States, which are all subject to the exact same problem as their contents are also more properly termed as channels rather than stations. So no prejudice against a larger batch discussion to reconsider how we name all the related categories, but I can't support singling this one out for special treatment when its problem is endemic to the whole tree and not unique to the United States.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:28, 24 July 2019 (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.
"Manned" renaming
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. As this is close, please note the following factors: 1 - one of the oppose !votes is now indefinitely banned. 2 - The precedent set at
Manned missions to the Moon, which was closed with a "rename" outcome. Fish+
Karate13:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This should've waited for the other one to close. "Crewed mission" is a phrase this is far less (an order of magnitude less) used than "manned mission" - see
NGRAM. The same is true for "space program" -
NGRAM, submersible -
NGRAM - and so on and so forth. Furthermore, "manned" -
merriam-webster - is a gender neutral term defined as "carrying or performed by a human being" and is not man or woman specific.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
This should have been put up for discussion together with the first one but I can't change the past. I don't see why it would be useful to wait for the other one to finish. Yes, "manned" technically does not exclude women but "crewed" avoids any uncertainty about this. It might be used less frequently but it is clearly an established term. --
mfb (
talk)
21:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Pointless. Already gender neutral. Dumbing down language to pander to ignorance doesn't seem appropriate for a place where people are supposed to learn.(
Hohum@)
23:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I think Icewhiz and Hohum have it. Can't wait for Armstrong's quote to be "corrected": "That's one small step for [a] crew, one giant leap for crewkind"... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Why would it matter? Also don't forget the consistency aspect which is independent of it. Currently we have a mixture of crewed (more common in article titles) and manned. --
mfb (
talk)
10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support - we don't correct quotes, but we do choose what to name our categories. And I somehow don't see making gender disclosure a requirement of commenting on a category naming discussion. --
GRuban (
talk)
11:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- "Manned" is by definition gender-neutral. An Encyclopedia is to inform with precision, this necessitates the use of accurate terminology. The changes to this, and a number of other articles regarding the (Largely NASA cited) swap from "manned" to alternatives seem thus wholly unnecessary. If there was a push to swap all appropriate instances of "manned" with "crewed" for reasons of consistency, I would be in support. However, the gender-neutral agenda on this site currently seems unreasonably aggressive.
PiggiusMax (
talk)
12:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
As both discussions were open in parallel there is no reason to favor one over the other. If the aggregate discussion (both) is at no consensus, then the default decision is to retain the status quo.
Icewhiz (
talk)
19:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Consistency was always an important part (maybe even the most important) of the proposed move. And I don't see any opposition considering consistency. --
mfb (
talk)
08:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Primarily per the consistancy argument, but also partly due to gender neutal language. Even if it never was intended to be gendered it is, as demonstrated by the responses in this discussion, percived by some to not be gender neutral. --
Trialpears (
talk)
20:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is just getting ridiculous. Manned is the excepted English usage for these things. The moon mission renaming was a mistake, and these would be bigger mistakes.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment, if this discussion closes differently than the other, the two discussions should be reviewed together at
WP:DRV in order to reach consistency.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose per the many comments that have correctly stated that Manned is by definition gender-neutral. It's also the word overwhelming used in reliable sources to describe this stuff, so as an encyclopedia based on verifiability, it makes sense for us to match what the sources say.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
23:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)reply
This discussion was primarily motivated by NASA's style guidelines. However, NASA does not have the monopoly of sending people into space, not even in the English-speaking world. The
European Space Agency's website seems to use manned quite a lot, like in the subhead of
this piece dated 15 Oct 2019, in the caption and text of
this Nov 2018 article on their programme called the "Manned suborbital vehicle", or in
their presentation of Soyuz spacecraft, in which they use both manned spacecraft and crewed flight. I would therefore not think this is general policy.
Place Clichy (
talk)
08:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
If you wish to overturn the consensus at that RfC I suggest that you start a new one. The NASA guideline was only a starting point and in no way integral to the argument made. The only reason it wasn't added to
MOS:GNL seems to be that it was thought to be redundant to the advise there and should thus be weighed by the closer as an argument based on a directly relevant guideline. I have also just put a closure request at
WP:ANRFC. --
Trialpears (
talk)
12:08, 15 October 2019 (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:Media General
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:Sportspeople from Palmetto, Georgia
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: Only sportsperson (Or any notable person) from small one county community with just 1 entry. I recommend bypassing the usual merger to People from Palmetto because Chastain is the only entry there too.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?14:28, 22 July 2019 (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:Jewish Mentalists
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:Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality is rather strongly against splitting a category by religion or ethnicity unless it's a key feature of the main category; and I don't see these mentalists doing mind reading in a particularly Jewish way. I also don't see a large number of sources focusing on their Jewishness. I
asked the category creator and they said that they made the category because "9 out of 65 pages are jews there. It is roughly 85 times their percentage of the total population". I'm not sure what they mean by "the total population", but I don't see that as an exception to the guideline. --
GRuban (
talk) 14:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
GRuban (
talk)
14:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Primo! Priorité Monaco politicians
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: I have moved the main article to
Priorité Monaco. "Primo!" is a short name for Priorité Monaco; the short and long names for the party are alternatives, not parts of a full name. –
FayenaticLondon07:18, 22 July 2019 (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.
Millennia in colonial India
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, British India and Portuguese India both existed entirely within a single millennium, i.e. a diffusion by millennium does not make sense.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete -- most millennia categories are a waste of space. It is rare that there are enough centuries for them to need splitting, even for Portugal and British Empire.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:54, 25 July 2019 (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:TOYP Awardees
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:Heroes by role
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.
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: Category only used by one editor and I don't think that person was using it correctly. An expert on U.S. Roads would be asked to write about transportation concepts and theories, not a route description for a Tennessee state highway. There are better ways to grab the attention of a
WP:USRD editor than this one. –
Fredddie™23:56, 22 July 2019 (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:English-language television stations in the United States
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.
Comment then the non-specialty channels have to go elsewhere (where?). And someone has to determine what is a specialty channel and what is not. I wouldn't call CNN a specialty channel. --
mfb (
talk)
20:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose. Nominator is correct that there's a problem here, relating to the constant popular fuzzification of the actual distinctions between television "stations", "channels" and "networks" — those three terms properly mean different things, but get muddled and fuddled and duddled up with each other in common usage all the time anyway. However, there's a much larger problem than just this category alone: the parent ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:English-language television stations directly contains 68 articles, and has sibling categories for 10 other countries besides the United States, which are all subject to the exact same problem as their contents are also more properly termed as channels rather than stations. So no prejudice against a larger batch discussion to reconsider how we name all the related categories, but I can't support singling this one out for special treatment when its problem is endemic to the whole tree and not unique to the United States.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:28, 24 July 2019 (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.
"Manned" renaming
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. As this is close, please note the following factors: 1 - one of the oppose !votes is now indefinitely banned. 2 - The precedent set at
Manned missions to the Moon, which was closed with a "rename" outcome. Fish+
Karate13:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This should've waited for the other one to close. "Crewed mission" is a phrase this is far less (an order of magnitude less) used than "manned mission" - see
NGRAM. The same is true for "space program" -
NGRAM, submersible -
NGRAM - and so on and so forth. Furthermore, "manned" -
merriam-webster - is a gender neutral term defined as "carrying or performed by a human being" and is not man or woman specific.
Icewhiz (
talk)
08:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
This should have been put up for discussion together with the first one but I can't change the past. I don't see why it would be useful to wait for the other one to finish. Yes, "manned" technically does not exclude women but "crewed" avoids any uncertainty about this. It might be used less frequently but it is clearly an established term. --
mfb (
talk)
21:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Pointless. Already gender neutral. Dumbing down language to pander to ignorance doesn't seem appropriate for a place where people are supposed to learn.(
Hohum@)
23:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I think Icewhiz and Hohum have it. Can't wait for Armstrong's quote to be "corrected": "That's one small step for [a] crew, one giant leap for crewkind"... Cheers,
Ian Rose (
talk)
02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Why would it matter? Also don't forget the consistency aspect which is independent of it. Currently we have a mixture of crewed (more common in article titles) and manned. --
mfb (
talk)
10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Support - we don't correct quotes, but we do choose what to name our categories. And I somehow don't see making gender disclosure a requirement of commenting on a category naming discussion. --
GRuban (
talk)
11:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- "Manned" is by definition gender-neutral. An Encyclopedia is to inform with precision, this necessitates the use of accurate terminology. The changes to this, and a number of other articles regarding the (Largely NASA cited) swap from "manned" to alternatives seem thus wholly unnecessary. If there was a push to swap all appropriate instances of "manned" with "crewed" for reasons of consistency, I would be in support. However, the gender-neutral agenda on this site currently seems unreasonably aggressive.
PiggiusMax (
talk)
12:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
As both discussions were open in parallel there is no reason to favor one over the other. If the aggregate discussion (both) is at no consensus, then the default decision is to retain the status quo.
Icewhiz (
talk)
19:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Consistency was always an important part (maybe even the most important) of the proposed move. And I don't see any opposition considering consistency. --
mfb (
talk)
08:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Primarily per the consistancy argument, but also partly due to gender neutal language. Even if it never was intended to be gendered it is, as demonstrated by the responses in this discussion, percived by some to not be gender neutral. --
Trialpears (
talk)
20:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is just getting ridiculous. Manned is the excepted English usage for these things. The moon mission renaming was a mistake, and these would be bigger mistakes.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Procedural comment, if this discussion closes differently than the other, the two discussions should be reviewed together at
WP:DRV in order to reach consistency.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose per the many comments that have correctly stated that Manned is by definition gender-neutral. It's also the word overwhelming used in reliable sources to describe this stuff, so as an encyclopedia based on verifiability, it makes sense for us to match what the sources say.
Newshunter12 (
talk)
23:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)reply
This discussion was primarily motivated by NASA's style guidelines. However, NASA does not have the monopoly of sending people into space, not even in the English-speaking world. The
European Space Agency's website seems to use manned quite a lot, like in the subhead of
this piece dated 15 Oct 2019, in the caption and text of
this Nov 2018 article on their programme called the "Manned suborbital vehicle", or in
their presentation of Soyuz spacecraft, in which they use both manned spacecraft and crewed flight. I would therefore not think this is general policy.
Place Clichy (
talk)
08:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)reply
If you wish to overturn the consensus at that RfC I suggest that you start a new one. The NASA guideline was only a starting point and in no way integral to the argument made. The only reason it wasn't added to
MOS:GNL seems to be that it was thought to be redundant to the advise there and should thus be weighed by the closer as an argument based on a directly relevant guideline. I have also just put a closure request at
WP:ANRFC. --
Trialpears (
talk)
12:08, 15 October 2019 (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:Media General
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:Sportspeople from Palmetto, Georgia
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: Only sportsperson (Or any notable person) from small one county community with just 1 entry. I recommend bypassing the usual merger to People from Palmetto because Chastain is the only entry there too.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof?14:28, 22 July 2019 (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:Jewish Mentalists
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:Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality is rather strongly against splitting a category by religion or ethnicity unless it's a key feature of the main category; and I don't see these mentalists doing mind reading in a particularly Jewish way. I also don't see a large number of sources focusing on their Jewishness. I
asked the category creator and they said that they made the category because "9 out of 65 pages are jews there. It is roughly 85 times their percentage of the total population". I'm not sure what they mean by "the total population", but I don't see that as an exception to the guideline. --
GRuban (
talk) 14:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
GRuban (
talk)
14:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Primo! Priorité Monaco politicians
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: I have moved the main article to
Priorité Monaco. "Primo!" is a short name for Priorité Monaco; the short and long names for the party are alternatives, not parts of a full name. –
FayenaticLondon07:18, 22 July 2019 (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.
Millennia in colonial India
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, British India and Portuguese India both existed entirely within a single millennium, i.e. a diffusion by millennium does not make sense.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete -- most millennia categories are a waste of space. It is rare that there are enough centuries for them to need splitting, even for Portugal and British Empire.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:54, 25 July 2019 (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:TOYP Awardees
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:Heroes by role
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.