Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 23

< October 22	October 24 >

October 23[edit]

Soviet and Russian military categories[edit]

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: split. Kbdank71 14:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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)

Split per nom (as below). Cgingold (talk) 06:25, 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:James Bond vehicles[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete per nom, nondefining. We shouldn't categorize real life products by product placement; next would inevitably be Category:Mad Men brands... Note there is already a List of James Bond vehicles. Postdlf (talk) 14:23, 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:Oprah[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Oprah to Category:Oprah Winfrey

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]

Rename per nom -- the formal name is to be preferred. Cgingold (talk) 12:41, 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:Falsettos[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete per nom. Many singers sing falsetto occasionally. I'm sure this has come up before - a while ago though. Johnbod (talk) 00:13, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-defining or trivial characteristic. (See WP:OCAT) Original research is better dealt with on an article-by-article basis. - Stepheng3 (talk) 05:01, 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:GMA Artist Center[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete as an instance of categorizing performers by performance. (See WP:OCAT) - Stepheng3 (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Stepheng3.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:37, 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:Great West Conference[edit]

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: relisted on 28th. Kbdank71 14:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Great West Conference to Category:Great West Football Conference

Nominator's rationale: Merge, These appear to be two different names for the same thing. The article is at Great West Conference and Great West Football Conference is a redirect thereto. Stepheng3 (talk) 19:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge - if the article is at Great West Conference then the category name should match it. Otto4711 (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - Otto's logic is again impeccable (it seems now not to be an all-football conference). Occuli (talk) 23:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as nominator, I'm fine with the reverse merge. - Stepheng3 (talk) 05:05, 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:Jan Matejko[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete and move the gallery out. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:10, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but why are the many images such as Image:Zaprowadzenie chrzescijanstwa 965 Matejko.JPG (which is not categorised at all) not in something like Category:Jan Matejko images? Occuli (talk) 19:52, 26 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[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete - most eponymous categories for people are discouraged under WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. - Stepheng3 (talk) 05:09, 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:Babe Ruth Award[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, list exists in article. Kbdank71 14:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: ~~Listify and~~ delete - ~~No article currently exists on this award but~~ based on the category description it seems fairly minor. ~~Suggest creating List of Babe Ruth Award winners and deleting.~~ If kept rename to Category:Babe Ruth Award winners. Otto4711 (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Babe Ruth Award does in fact exist, and I have added it to the category. -Eliyak T·C 17:39, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weird. It didn't turn up when I searched for it. Otto4711 (talk)

Listify and delete -- This is the normal solution to award categories. A list have the advantage that it can be in date order. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 26 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:Hank Aaron Award[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete as list exists in main article. Kbdank71 14:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by minor award. Otto4711 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete -- This is the normal solution to award categories. A list have the advantage that it can be in date order. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 26 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:Jack Graney Award[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete as list already exists. Kbdank71 14:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by minor award. List exists in article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete -- This is the normal solution to award categories. A list have the advantage that it can be in date order. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 26 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:Warren Spahn Award[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete as list already exists. Kbdank71 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - an award given by a state sporting museum to the best left-handed pitcher of the year. Overcategorization by minor award. List exists in main article. Otto4711 (talk) 16:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and delete -- This is the normal solution to award categories. A list have the advantage that it can be in date order. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 26 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:Wayne Gretzky[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, OC. Kbdank71 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - unnecessary eponymous overcategorization. The small number of articles are interlinked through the main article and each other. Otto4711 (talk) 16:24, 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:Bo Jackson[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 14:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Delete – seasons or series in which someone played are indeed an execrable basis for categorization. (I see there are a few in Category:Categories named after sportspeople.) Occuli (talk) 17:52, 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[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: listify. Kbdank71 13:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Agree, even though I created it, I had no idea it violated WP:OCAT. Listify and then delete. --Milonica (talk) 17:18, 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[edit]

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 all to Category:Full access controlled highways. Category:Full access controlled highways by country, and Category:Full access controlled highways in Norway. The by country subcats should retain whatever nomenclature is used in the specific country.. Kbdank71 13:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic to Category:Freeways

Propose renaming Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic by country to Category:Freeways by country

Propose renaming Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Norway to Category:Freeways in Norway

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic is a mouthful and not in common usage. It redirects to freeway, so why not have the category and the main article match? I think that all 21 goggle hits trance back to the usage here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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. Note this previous relevant discussion. --Eliyak T·C 08:02, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I thought this was discussed but could not find it. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:50, 19 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. --Eliyak T·C 02:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- FYI. I believe that almost every toll road in the US is a freeway. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:52, 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, Kbdank71 14:55, 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]

Rename but not as Freeway for reasons already explained. Expressway seems OK to me. --Klein zach 00:28, 25 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]
Does Category:Full access controlled highways work for the many categories? Category:Motorways and Category:Freeways would be a sub categories. Expressways would not be included however we could create Category:Full access controlled expressways to cover the by country categories where they are in fact fully controlled access highways. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vegaswikian. Category:Full access controlled highways or perhaps Category:Full access controlled highways by country will do well as a parent category. Its national subcategories should use national nomenclature: Motorways in UK; auroroutes in France; freeways in USA; autobahns in Germany; autostrada in Italy; etc. I think it would be unnecessary to have a parent categoy for Freeways or Motorways, as the difference is largely one of national terminology. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 26 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[edit]

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 all. Kbdank71 13:36, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox churches to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates

Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox jurisdictional churches in Asia to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Asia

Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and sees in Europe to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates in Europe

Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox minor churches and movements to Category:Eastern Orthodox minor church bodies and movements

Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox Churches in North America to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies in North America

Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox uncanonical churches to Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies

Propose renaming Category:Oriental Orthodox churches to Category:Oriental Orthodox church bodies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category:Eastern Orthodox churches, etc., are easily and often seen as a categories for church buildings. (e.g. Category:Eastern Orthodox churches in the United States). In Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_October_8#Category:Anglican_churches it was agreed to name a category for Churches in a very simlar type of organization as "church bodies." In the case of Eastern Orthodoxy, some units (or at least the articles on them) are named for the patriarchate if the body covers more than a simple nation, e.g. Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople--Carlaude ^(talk) 20:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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]

So since nothing is air-tight, you want them to stay as is-- all different and not even matching each other?--Carlaude ^(talk) 00:49, 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, Kbdank71 14:50, 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[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to "Political scandals in Foo". Kbdank71 13:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian political scandals to Category:to be determined

Propose renaming Category:Political scandals in Italy to Category:to be determined

Propose renaming Category:Political scandals of South Africa to Category:to be determined

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]

Support Category:Fooian political scandals. This avoids sorting issues, so unless there is a problem in using Fooian, then this should be a good solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Vegaswikian's proposal. 'Fooian political scandals' would probably work well. --Soman (talk) 20:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer Political scandals in Foo, but I would go along with Vegaswikian. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 18 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, Kbdank71 14:47, 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]
Rename to "Political scandals in [country]" per my usual argument about adjective demonyms. Prefer "in" over "of" per above argument. — CharlotteWebb 14:34, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to the closing admin. Feel free to ignore my opinion above if that means there would be consensus for a different name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:05, 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:Historical novelists of whodunnits[edit]

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. Kbdank71 13:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Writers of historical mysteries. The current name is problematic in two respects: First, it's rather clunky grammatically; second, the term whodunnits is too slangy (to coin a word) for use in a category name. The proposed name is also consistent with the sibling category, Category:Writers of historical romances. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Seriously, how did the existing name last this long? Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. - Stepheng3 (talk) 05:33, 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:Attractions in the Netherlands[edit]

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. Kbdank71 13:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Attractions in the Netherlands to Category:Visitor attractions in the Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: Merge, duplicate categories. Target is standard naming format for subcategories of Category:Visitor attractions by country. Most (perhaps not all) of the articles are already in the appropriate subcategory of the target category, so a straight delete might be OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:32, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Category:Visitor attractions in the Netherlands or its subcats those articles that are not already present there. No reason for two cats covering the same general subject. Hmains (talk) 02:37, 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:Atomic garden[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category; contains only Atomic Garden and albums category.(If kept, caps needs fixing.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This falls well short of needing a category of its own. Cgingold (talk) 11:29, 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:Ongoing trends[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't really see the utility of this cat. Editor who created had added a lot of articles--e.g., Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom, apparently she's a trend now--to this cat. [ roux ] [x] 03:35, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - too subjective, thus WP:OVERCAT applies. Aboutmovies (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Aboutmovies Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't think of an article which should be in the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:01, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

War would probably be a pretty good candidate. Or fire. Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What about keeping this and adding it to Category:Silly categories? Huh?? Darn. I was sure we had such a category! Cgingold (talk) 11:40, 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:Soviet and Russian intelligence agencies[edit]

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: split per nom. Kbdank71 14:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Soviet and Russian intelligence agencies to Category:Soviet intelligence agencies

Nominator's rationale: This category should be split into Category:Soviet intelligence agencies and Category:Russian intelligence agencies. The Soviet Union is not Russia, and Russia is not the Soviet Union. Russavia ^{Dialogue Stalk me} 03:18, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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[edit]

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]

Propose renaming Category:Hebrew years 5500 - 5599 to Category:Hebrew years 5500–5599

Propose renaming Category:Hebrew years 5600 - 5699 to Category:Hebrew years 5600–5699

Propose renaming Category:Hebrew years 5700 - 5799 to Category:Hebrew years 5700–5799

Propose renaming Category:Hebrew years 5800 - 5899 to Category:Hebrew years 5800–5899

Propose renaming Category:Hebrew years 5900 - 5999 to Category:Hebrew years 5900–5999

Nominator's rationale: Rename per WP:DASH year range guidelines. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:16, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps add a soft redirect from Category:Hebrew years 5900-5999, but the spaced years are unique in the English language Wikipedia. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:18, 23 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]
Can you point me to a discusion about that? I can't see a recent decision. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was on .... years in football in Israel? (There was an earlier one on bilateral relations which went the other way.) I could take either side on this one with equal conviction. Occuli (talk) 11:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 in this cfd went with en–dash. There was a back—lash on September 1, the most comprehensive discussion being Soccer seasons. Occuli (talk) 13:35, 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]

I thought there were bots which emptied soft redirects from time to time, but can't recall the source of this impression. Occuli (talk) 14:02, 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]

Rename per above, with category redirects as needed. — CharlotteWebb 16:25, 26 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? --Kbdank71 13:23, 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. --Kbdank71 13:48, 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. --Kbdank71 14:26, 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. - jc37 09:05, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style concerning this. - jc37 09:06, 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]
Its activities are logged at User:RussBot/category redirect log. It has dealt with several such today—eg this diff. Occuli (talk) 15:56, 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.