Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 26 February 28 >

February 27[edit]

Category:Violent incidents in the United States[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 Category:Violence in the United States. Kbdank71 15:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Violent incidents in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Currently has 16 items. If "completed", would run into the millions. Not a category anyone will use to look up anything. Tempshill (talk) 22:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep A good and needed parent category to help the reader navigate. There is nothing in the WP rules that says 'do not have a category if it or its sub-cats will connect to too many articles'--quite the opposite. Hmains (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename to Category:Violence in the United States, which is consistent with the parent cat, Category:Violence. Not everything included here is necessarily an "incident", so the broader term is preferable. The nominator's rationale ignores the fundamental purpose of grouping categories such as this one, which is to facilitate navigation between closely related sub-categories. Cgingold (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Cgingold. It wouldn't "run into the millions", as articles in the category would have to be notable to be on WP. Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Cgingold. Nominator needs to understand that a category with 13 direct subcats is very well-populated. Johnbod (talk) 17:27, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Cgingold. Note that there are several siblings in Category:Violence named 'Category:Violent incidents in XXX' which would benefit from a similar rename, and that the UK is mercifully free of such indecorum. Occuli (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Cgingold. kilbad (talk) 20:33, 28 February 2009 (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:Genetic skin diseases[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 Category:Genodermatoses Erik9 (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Genetic skin diseases to Category:Genodermatoses
Nominator's rationale for renaming:
  • I started the Dermatology taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at WP:DERM:CAT, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the "Genetic skin diseases" category should probably be renamed to "Genodermatoses" as the as the proposed name is extremely specific, accurately defining the scope and content of the category (see List_of_skin-related_conditions#Genodermatoses for a listing of all the conditions considered part of this category)
  • The problem with the current category name is that it is extremely nonspecific. All skin diseases have some "genetic" component. Therefore, as the name currently is, basically any skin condition could be added. However, the diseases being included in this category constitute a specific group of inherited skin conditions well documented in all the major general unabridged dermatology texts (Fitzpatrick's, Andrews', Rook's, and Bolognia), and, additionally, several full text have been on just these diseases (see [1]). Therefore, I think a rename to Category:Genodermatoses is appropriate.
  • However, anticipating that the user may not know what genodermatoses are, with a renaming to Category:Genodermatoses should (and will if approved) come an easy to read definition and introduction pertaining to genodermatoses at the top of the category page. kilbad (talk) 21:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as per kilbad. Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename and easy-to-read definition/intro as per Kilbad. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with the proper definition and introduction.--SanderB (talk) 23:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as the name is hard to understand for non-medical people, intro as proposed is good, good job kilbad. as per kilbad. T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with slight reservation because I'd prefer a less technical title if possible. Would it be useful to redirect 'genetic skin diseases', 'genetic skin disorders' and 'genetic skin conditions' to the proposed new cat? Kevin McCready (talk) 07:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support although the term genodermatoses was not introduced to me until I started training in dermatology. It is likely a term only known within the dermatology circle.--Northerncedar (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per kilbad. Filip em (talk) 21:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As a layman, I would not know what this meant. I would prefer Category:Genetic dermatosis, favouring the singular as the plural is also not in use by laymen. If the nomination is accepted, it is vital that the category be provided with a brief headnote defining the subject and pointing to a (general) main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • When renamed to Category:Genodermatoses, I will absolutely place a headnote with an easy-to-read definition/intro, also with links to the main article. kilbad (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2009 (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:Physiognomy[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. Kbdank71 15:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Physiognomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - Tiny category (main article & 1 sub-cat) with very little potential for expansion. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should it not also contain Category:Phrenology? ("Phrenology was also considered a form of physiognomy.") Also it now has 4 articles. Occuli (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, there's a nice little surprise - if you could just see the look on my face! (heh heh) I see our colleague choster has located & added 3 more articles to the category, so perhaps there's enough to consider keeping it.
As for Phrenology, that's an interesting question, which I did consider carefully. When I first came upon those two cats, they were each parents of one another. (yikes) So my first thought was to determine which should serve as the parent of the other. In the end I concluded that neither is properly considered the other's parent, and that it was best to use a horizontal (CatRel) link instead, because while there is an obvious resemblance, the practice of Phrenology is not truly a sub-set of the practice of Physiognomy.
It's true that there is a broader sense of the term "Physiognomy" which can be construed to encompass other, similar fields. But in actual practice, Physiognomy pertains to the reading of facial characteristics, while Phrenology deals strictly with bumps & bulges of the skull. As that article puts it: "Phrenology, which focuses on personality and character, should be distinguished from craniometry, which is the study of skull size, weight and shape, and physiognomy, the study of facial features." So unless there's a stronger case to be made for Phrenology actually being a type of Physiognomy I think the current setup is probably the way to go. Anyway, that's my take on the issue, but I'm certainly open to other views. Perhaps choster will weigh in on this question. Cgingold (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I don't have a lot of time for WP at the moment. I'm basically neutral as to whether Physiognomy needs a category or not, but added a few articles that might make the decision clearer for others. Perhaps Category:Physiognomists ought to be deleted instead— is belief in Physiognomy really a defining characteristic of Pythagoras and Chaucer?— and those persons closely identified with physiognomy like Johann Kaspar Lavater upmerged to produce a better-populated category.-choster (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2009 (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:Reiki[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 15:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reiki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - A very small (3 articles) category with very little potential for growth. There's simply no need for it. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2009 (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:United Kingdom law[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 14:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom law to Category:Law in the United Kingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggested rename in a discussion below. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2009 (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:People acquitted of sex crimes[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 15:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People acquitted of sex crimes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category continue to be a BLP train wreck, and includes many living people where acquittal of a sex crime is far from a "defining characteristic." Wikipedia does not exist to shame people who have been cleared by the state. This is the most oodius member of Category:People acquitted of crimes, and we should delete it. Prior debate. Cool Hand Luke 18:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have mixed feelings about this category, so I would be interested to know how your view has evolved from the previous CFD, where you argued for keeping because for some individuals this precise issue is what they are chiefly known for. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - excellent point made by User:Cool Hand Luke. Pyrrhus16 18:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment we should delete anyone who is defined by their accusation and acquittal Michael Jackson has lots of other claims to notability; William Kennedy Smith - if we believe that notability is not inherited - does not and should be speedied after this closes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • An acquittal is one event, I think. At the least, we would put those somewhere else per WP:BLP1E if they are truly only known for their acquittal. Cool Hand Luke 05:51, 4 March 2009 (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:Gay novels[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. As noted, people are gay, not novels. Kbdank71 15:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Gay novels to Category:Novels with gay themes
Nominator's rationale: More accurate wording, as some novels classed as "gay SF" are mainly SF (speculative fiction/science fiction) novels, with 1 or more gay themes. "Gay novels" implies a novel whose main theme/topic is homosexuality/gay relationships. Outsider80 (talk) 11:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the exact renaming (Novels with gay themes? Gay-themed novels? whatever), but the current name is terrible. People are gay, not novels. SethTisue (talk) 14:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment note sibling Category:Lesbian novels, both subcategories of Category:LGBT novels. They sound like a genre to me. If the main theme/topic isn't homosexuality or gay relationships, perhaps it doesn't belong, and the category just needs cleanup. Jabba the Hutt is a gangster, but that doesn't mean Return of the Jedi belongs in Category:Mafia films.-choster (talk) 17:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator comment -- Almost nominated both but wasn't sure the Lesbian cat needed it. However, in the interests of consistency maybe it would be best to rename both -- also, if this problem exists in the Gay male category, then it is conceivable it could also exist in the Lesbian cat. The problem with having the cats named "Gay novels" or "Lesbian novels" is at what threshhold does it qualify as a "gay novel". A novel that is mainly of another genre (such as Sci-fi novels), but has a major gay theme (such as a main character who is gay, and his relationships) -- but otherwise the novel is not about gay themes -- it would be more accurate to call such a novel a Sci-fi novel (which happens to have gay themes), rather than a Gay novel (The novel is more a sci-fi novel than a "gay" novel, and gay novel implies the novel is only of interest to gay men, like it is a romance novel or something) Outsider80 (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to LGBT-related novels - "LGBT-related" is standard practice for this sort of category. See for example Category:LGBT-related films, Category:LGBT-related television programs, etc. If the category becomes so massive that splitting into "gay-related", "lesbian-related" etc. becomes useful then no prejudice to recreation. Otto4711 (talk) 19:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator comment -- The suggested rename to LGBT-related novels -- LGBT novels cat already exists as a parent cat to the Lesbian novels and Gay novels cats. Having a separate gay cat, and lesbian cat for novels (and other literature cats) allows these cats to also fall under Gay male-specific or Lesbian-specific category trees. Outsider80 (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete how much of a gay-theme must a novel have and what RSes tell us it has that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2009 (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:UK equality case law[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 Category:Equality case law in the United Kingdom. Kbdank71 15:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK equality case law to Category:United Kingdom equality case law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this was moved in a cfd from Category:UK case law, as were most of the others beginning United Kingdom. I don't think many UK people would use United Kingdom as an adjective. (Category:United Kingdom company case law was renamed from UK in Feb 2009. Was this a speedy perhaps? I have not been able to find any record of it in cfd.) Occuli (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible, I know that expansions of abbreviations, if that is the only change, do happen as speedies if there are no objections. Don't know if that is good or bad. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2009 (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:UK railway stations opened since 1948[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 expand abbreviation. No consensus on upmerging, renaming to match parent, changing date to "nationalization", etc. Kbdank71 14:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK railway stations opened since 1948 to Category:United Kingdom railway stations opened since 1948
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. Upmerge to Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom may be a better option since there is no logic in the introduction for choosing 1948 as a date. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:27, 27 February 2009 (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:UK railway stations by former operator[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 Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by former operator. Kbdank71 15:37, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK railway stations by former operator to Category:United Kingdom railway stations by former operator
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:23, 27 February 2009 (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:UK Railways Authorised but not built[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 Category:Railways authorised but not built in the United Kingdom. Kbdank71 15:35, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK Railways Authorised but not built to Category:United Kingdom railways authorised but not built
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. Don't know if Category:British railways authorised but not built might be better. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2009 (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:Folk musical instruments[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. Kbdank71 15:01, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Folk musical instruments to Category:Musical instruments by nationality
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are 90% parallel or better and a searcher might miss pertinent info because an editor filed an article in one cat but not the other. I suggest they be merged to avoid this issue. Honestly, how many instruments are firmly defined by a country but indescribable as "folk"? Saxophones may be invented in Belgium, but I doubt many people consider their Belgian-ness fundamental. Similarly, is a Turkmen folk instrument really losing clarity of categorisation if simply categorised under "Turkmen musical instruments"? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see the problem, but the solution prposed would be worse. Most folk instuments cannot be tied to one modern country. "how many instruments are firmly defined by a country but indescribable as "folk?"" is one question, but "how many instruments are not firmly defined by a country?" is more relevant here, and the answer is loads. A merge the other way would make more sense. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cgingold (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2009 (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:Columbia University Law School faculty[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. Kbdank71 15:07, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Columbia University Law School faculty to Category:Columbia Law School faculty
Nominator's rationale: Merge to pre-existing category which bears the proper name of the school. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 03:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I wonder if we should keep the wrong one as a redirect? Cgingold (talk) 09:31, 27 February 2009 (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:Nobel Prize Laureates of the Optical Society of America[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 to Category:Nobel laureates in Physics and Category:Members of the Optical Society of America. Kbdank71 15:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Nobel Prize Laureates of the Optical Society of America to Category:Nobel laureates in Physics
Nominator's rationale: Delete/upmerge. Overcategorization by intersection of award and membership in a professional organization. We categorize Nobel laureates by field and by nationality, but not by other interesting intersections. Lists can be created for any further break-down. Contents should be merged to Category:Nobel laureates in Physics. Contents could also be merged to Category:Members of the Optical Society of America, though I'm not convinced that that category should exist either. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2009 (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.

merge Category:People of Bosnian descent to Category:People of Bosnia and Herzegovina descent[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 15:33, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging/renaming
Nominator's rationale: as 'Bosnia and Herzegovina' has been established as the accepted adjective form for the noun 'Bosnia and Herzegovina' on wikip Mayumashu (talk) 02:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Agreed in principle, but I suspect that a Bosnian Serb or Bosnian Croat would self-identify as a Serb or a Croat, even if from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Accordingly, these categories are probably only for the Bosnian Muslim ethnicity. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I support double listing individuals as being both of 'Bosnia and Herzegovina descent' as a 'of national descent' marker and then, as it is known, of being 'of Bosniak [or Bosnian Muslim] descent', 'of Croatian descent', 'of Serbian descent', 'of Albanian descent' or whathaveyou, as the case may be, as an ethnic marker. Having said this, as it stands, in a de facto sense you are right Peterkingiron - there is no, at present anyway, Category:People of Bosniak descent. (And I don t see a need to start it up as the lists listed in this nomination are still lightly populated.) Mayumashu (talk) 17:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A look at discussion between those with ties to the region reveals that use of 'Bosniak' to refer only to Bosnian Muslim people, or even all non-Croat, non-Serb people of BiH, is not without controversy (see Talk:Bosniak). The term is used by some, perhaps many, to refer to any Muslim in the former Yugoslavia, including those that are ethnically Albanian or Serb. At any rate, this strays from the topic at hand which to rename an 'of national descent' batch of cat pages Mayumashu (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2009 (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:United States regional rail systems[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 proposed name, though it sounds like a broad nomination for all subcategories of Category:Regional rail systems would be appropriate, since there seems to be some support for "Regional rail systems of Foo" if the format is applied across the board to all of the subcategories. I hate to close this as no consensus in light of my close immediately below, which now leaves this category as the odd-man out, so I'm strongly recommending a nomination that can standardize all of these names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:United States regional rail systems to Category:American regional rail systems
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Form used in most other categories in this subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose It seems that the 'most other categories' do not follow the general pattern in which 'American' and the like is only used for people, society and culture and United States and the like is used for everything else. Hmains (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are we looking at the same version of Category:Regional rail systems? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, I will be more clear. What I am saying is that all subcats of Category:Regional rail systems are improperly named except for the United States and Hong Kong. None of these subcats should be using the 'nationality' name; they should all be using the name of the country. Nationality is applied only to people/society/culture categories throughout WP--except where they are wrong and need correction. In this case Category:Regional rail systems in the United States would be the correct name Hmains (talk) 18:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Go right ahead and propose the all of the others for renaming. In either case, this one would still need renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose America is two continents, and not the same as the United States, however much the USA may believe that it rules the world. Category:Regional rail systems in the United States would be permissible. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has been discussed and American can be used for the United States. There is no confusion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I say rename all of the sub-cats along the lines of Category:Regional rail systems in the United States. The underlying semantic/grammatical issue is that these are for rail lines by location, not rail lines by nationality. (Last time I checked, they don't even have a nationality... ) Cgingold (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, or nominate all of the subcategories of Category:Regional rail systems. Tim! (talk) 18:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would support a version of this category name with the use of "United States" over the use of "America." kilbad (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2009 (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:UK regional rail systems[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: there wasn't really a great consensus for this, but I'm going to have this one renamed as nominated just so that the "UK" as an adjective can be converted to a more appropriate adjective of "British". However, this close is done with a strong recommendation that this category and the other subcategories of Category:Regional rail systems be nominated for a mass rename to "Regional rail systems of Foo", as it seems likely that there would be a consensus for that if broadly applied to all the categories. (See also nomination immediately above.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK regional rail systems to Category:British regional rail systems
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow form of most entries in this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2009 (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:UK labour case law[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 Category:Labour case law in the United Kingdom Erik9 (talk) 02:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK labour case law to Category:United Kingdom labour case law
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2009 (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:UK Underground Punk Scene[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 Category:Underground punk scene in the United Kingdom. Kbdank71 15:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK Underground Punk Scene to Category:United Kingdom underground punk scene
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Spelling. Can someone with more knowledge in this area look at the contents and the parent category? The introduction seems to be at odds with the parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2009 (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:UK railway stations by train operating company[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 Category:Railway stations in the United Kingdom by train operating company. Kbdank71 15:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK railway stations by train operating company to Category:United Kingdom railway stations by operating company
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation and drop train. I don't believe that we need to qualify the operating company as a train operating company. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:01, 27 February 2009 (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:UK regional academic networks[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 Category:Regional academic computer networks in the United Kingdom. Kbdank71 15:29, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK regional academic networks to Category:United Kingdom regional academic computer networks
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation and reword to better match parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2009 (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:UK planning interested parties[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 Category:Interested parties in planning in the United Kingdom. Kbdank71 15:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK planning interested parties to Category:United Kingdom planning interested parties
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbeviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming per nom. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 06:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something else; both options are incomprehensible. Why is the UK planning interested parties? 'Planning interesting parties'? There is Category:Interested parties in planning in England which is marginally better ... it has to be 'XXX in the United Kingdom' per parent cats (and per UK speak, MPs notwithstanding). Occuli (talk) 09:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Interested parties in planning in the United Kingdom per parent and subcategories. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - what the bloody hell is an "interested party"? Interested Parties Information indicates that it has something to do with UK copyrights. What does that have to do with "planning"? If the anticipated members of this category aren't related to copyrights, then what objective definition of "interested party" is there? Presumably anyone affected in any way, however tangentially, to "UK planning" (and what does that mean?) would end up in this category. Delete unless some objective definition of terms is available. Otto4711 (talk) 09:51, 5 March 2009 (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:UK waste legislation[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 Category:Waste legislation in the United Kingdom. Kbdank71 15:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK waste legislation to Category:United Kingdom waste legislation
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. I'm open to a better name. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2009 (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:UK MPs 1832-1835[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: less useful it is! I mean no consensus. Kbdank71 14:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UK MPs 1832-1835 to Category:United Kingdom MPs 1832-1835
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. No objection to expanding MP, but I suspect there could be some opposition to that. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – this has been discussed before. Many MPs such as Emanuel Shinwell are in many of these and expanding the abbreviations leads to reams of text. (There was a suggestion that these categories are to some extent administrative and will eventually be replaced with lists.) Occuli (talk) 00:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no objection to a Listify decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Is there any particular reason for picking 1832, or is this a test case? I must say that I find the present set-up a particularly impressive model of succinctness and clarity; the subcats listed at Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament display with great elegance. Occuli (talk) 09:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • It was the first one that came up in my search. When I saw additional ones, I decided to wait and see what happened here. If this one succeeds, I guess a larger rename or listify nomination will be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 09:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I see no good reason not to do this. If the clutter that would be created in some articles is the concern, then this can only hasten the day when someone will get around to listifying these, which is really the ideal solution. (I would say listify but there's not much point unless all of them are nominated together, I suppose.) By the way, the previous discussion is here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose Lengthening the category name will make the category lists much longer. And listification is unsatisfactory when many articles are still to be created and the disambiguation tags determined (and we certainly shouldn't be making category titles cumbersome as a backdoor route to deleting them). Timrollpickering (talk) 11:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose per Timrollpickering. Listification of UK MPs is a massive task, and is only complete from the 1950s onwards, leaving 150 years of MPs to be listified (an average of 650 MPs in each of 30 parliaments, many with deeply ambiguous names because seats tended to be held by members of the same family). In the meantime, the categories serve a dual function: for readers, as a means of navigation pending the completion of lists; and for editors, as a tool to assist the completion of the lists. As others have noted, expanding the abbreviations will lead to reams of text ... and in any case, this is only a partial expansion. If the nominator really wants to expand the abbreviations, the category name would be something along the lines of "United Kingdom Members of Parliament 1832-1835", which creates even more clutter. These categories may be unusual, but they work very effectively, and per the policy WP:IAR we shouldn't use a rule to reduce the useability of wikipedia.
    Finally, renaming one category in a series is disruptive, and would impede the useability of the categories: if there is a desire to rename them (which I oppose), then they should either all be renamed or none of them. At present all these categories use the format UK MPs year1-year2, and that consistency helps both readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS For the lists, see Category:MPs elected in UK elections. Note that the lists are not simply a bare listing of MPs, but list them by constituency, which is why compiling the lists is such a lengthy process. One of the difficulties is that until the early 20th century, many county seats in parliament were held by baronets or nobility, who not only recycled first names but whose baronetcies often had several creations, being re-established when the line became extinct. I have encountered numerous examples where not only were there several baronets named John X representing a particular constituency, but several people named Sir John X, nth Baronet, because several similar baronetcies were created. The potential for confusion in creating lists is massive, and the categories are an invaluable tool in checking that one is referring to right John X out of a dozen or members of the same extended family. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the present series (with briefer names) is better, as more succint and including those elected at subsequent byelections. Lists by Parliament will be useful, but as you say hard work. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose change. A long-serving MP may have half a dozen or more such categories, as there is one per Parliament. We have lists of MPs by constituency. I do not think a full list would be useful. Traditionally, they were categoriesed as "Members of the Parliament of Great Britain for English constituencies", which is a horrible mouthful that probably started as English MPs, but I am not sure that the present national categories are any more useful than the county ones that we recently deleted. This series is much more useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#OVERLAPPING, one of the worst examples of overcategorisation. Winston Churchill is in 14 of these categories, it is a complete mess. Tim! (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Churchill is an extreme example, because of his exceptionally long service in parliament. A more representative example of a senior politician is Tony Blair, who is in 6 of these categories. The brevity of these category names ensure that they do not generate excessive category clutter. (The clutter on Tony Blair is caused categories for prizes he has won, which are hardly defining characteristics). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as a special case, to save space. Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggested compromise. If this discussion closes as listify, tag all of the categories using {{Listify}}. This will add them to the list of categories that need to be listified and this can happen over time. But the categories would be flagged so that users would be aware that the categories should not be nominated for renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply The categories are slowly being listified anyway, but it's a huge job, so I'm not sure what the tag would add. Surely the CFD notice on the talk page with a link to this discussion will be sufficient notice that renaming has already been discussed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The tag on the actual category page makes it clear that the category is being listified. So there will be no nominations for renames and it may even generate additional editors to help with the task. I see no reason not to do this. Yes, we are bending the rules a bit since every category is not nominated, but I think WP:BOLD would apply after this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hold on!!!. the {{listify}} template says "After (CFD link), it was decided that this category should be replaced by a list." So what you are proposing now is a very long way from your initial proposal to rename one category; this latest suggestions amounts to a postponed deletion of a set of over fifty categories. I see nothing resembling a consensus in this discussion for such a move, and if that is what you want it really does need very thorough discussion, because this is a huge set of categories, and giving a general license to delete them could have highly disruptive consequences for the ongoing work of building lists by parliament and lists of constituency MPs. There is a real danger that someone could see the listify tag on of these categories, make a bare list of all the articles currently in the category, and then delete it. Then we are left with a near useless creation, a partial list of MPs in a given parliament, without any indication of what seats they held or party they belonged to. That may not be your intention, but if the listify tags are applied then it would be a perfectly appropriate action.
          Once deleted, categories cannot easily be recreated (because articles get moved), and getting these categories to the current point of being a genuinely useful aid in building constituency articles and lists by parliament has taken two-and-half-years of work by numerous editors who have ploughed through mountains of highly ambiguous names. If you want to delete all these categories, then tag them all and make a clear proposal to do so ... but a renaming tag on one out of 55 categories is thoroughly inadequate notice for a move to deletion. Applying a {{listify}} tag to each of them now would not be WP:BOLD, it would be reckless, and I'd strongly oppose it. WP:B OLD notes that "there are some significant changes that can be long-lasting and that are harder to fix if the need arises", and applying a {{listify}} tag to all these categories would be just such a hard-to-fix step. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think I've ever liked the idea of grouping MPs by Parliament and I support listifying all such categories. These categories are poorly-named—consisting entirely of numbers and abbreviations that cannot be expanded without causing excessive clutter—often overlapping, and individually not very defining, especially for those people who have been members of several Parliaments. However, with this many categories and category members, a slow, deliberate approach is needed. So, while I completely support listifying and deleting all categories of this type, I think that the process should be coordinated within and among committed WikiProjects (perhaps even a temporary one created solely for this task) rather than implemented at WP:CFD/W/M.
    As far as the proposal to rename, I oppose it for reasons already stated by others; if there is consensus to rename, my preference is for Category:Members of the 11th Parliament of the United Kingdom rather than any title containing years. –Black Falcon (Talk) 05:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Virtually nobody uses that numbering and terminology - things in British political history are always identified by the dates involved not the "number since arbitrary date". Timrollpickering (talk) 12:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I didn't know that. That particular suggestion of mine was ultimately a superficial stylistic preference, and I have withdrawn it in light of your comment as common use should (almost) always have primacy over appearance. Thank you, –Black Falcon (Talk) 18:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • With a member of a single parliament, the length of the category would surely be unimportant, but since many politicians are/were members of several parliaments it is an issue. We need therefore a short, however also understandable form and this is guaranteed with the existing variant.
      ~~ Phoe talk ~~ 12:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Long comment[edit]

I disagree with some of the points made above by Black Falcon, but I do strongly support his concern that "with this many categories and category members, a slow, deliberate approach is needed" rather a short CFD discussion. Creating a list of MPs for each parliament involves 55 lists of between 600 and 700 people each: that's about 40,000 list entries. These lists are complex, particularly in the 19th century: MPs' names often involve complex ambiguities (due to extended families which recycle first names through generations) and to frequent name changes as titles were accumulated. It was not uncommon in the 19th century for an MP to progress from an unvarnished name ("John Smith") to a courtesy title ("the Viscount X") to an Irish peerage ("The Earl of Y") all whilst serving in the Commons, but for the article to be named under a subsequent UK title ("Baron Z"); so it is very easy for list entries to point to the wrong person. Even constituency names can ambiguous: there have been several completely distinct constituencies with the same name (see e.g. Richmond, Newport, Yarmouth, and Louth).

I am also concerned that some of those advocating radical changes to this huge category system do not seem to have read the previous discussions on the subject, most of which have already been linked from this here. This category system arose out of discussions in 2006 at Category talk:British MPs, when that huge category began to be subdivided: I created a series of categories of the form Category:MPs of the 28th UK Parliament (1906-1910) and began populating them. Those categories were promptly deleted at CfD in August 2006 amidst widespread concerns about the clutter caused by their unwieldy names; the closing admin noted here that the closure as delete was explicitly to allow their recreation with shorter names. The result was the current names, deliberately chosen to be as succinct as possible, and those names have persisted for 2½ years. So I find it a bit ironic that we now have demands for longer names; did those suggesting that actually read the earlier debates??? The two abbreviations used in the category names ("UK" and "MP") don't really merit the Wikipedia:WTF? OMG! TMD TLA. ARG! comment above: the abbreviation "MP" is clearly explained again in the opening words of every category and should be explained in the lead section of nearly every article on an MP (Sir Samuel Snodgrass was Member of Parliament (MP) for Snoutsinthetrough South-Central ...). Our guidance against using abbreviations in category names exists for good reason, but it is a guideline not an iron rule and per WP:GUIDELINE, "Guidelines are considered more advisory than policies, with exceptions more likely to occur". In this case, the abbreviations work, because in the context in which readers encounter them they are clearly explained.

Over the last 2½ years, these categories continue to be populated, and to serve both as a navigational tool and as a cross-check both on articles and on their associated lists: see for example Category talk:UK MPs 1959-1964 as one illustration of how the category totals are used as a checking mechanism. In that 2½ years I am aware of only two CFDs: one in January 2007 proposing the use of ndashes in the names and another in May 2007 proposing deletion. Both were closed as keep.

Consensus can change, but these categories have been fairly durable. That does not, of course, necessarily mean that they are the right solution for the future, but any changes deserve more detailed consideration than has been applied here, taking into account the balance between the maintenance problems of lists (as against category entries, which survive article moves), the various uses of these categories and the wider questions of categorising MPs (currently by country, by party and by parliament).

I think that there is also a pressing case for a much wider look at how the category system as a whole works for the most notable people such as Winston Churchill and Tony Blair. Blair, for example, is in:

  • 3 categories relating to his religion (a, b, c);
  • 3 relating to his education (d, e, f), plus a further two relating to his brief and undistinguished career as a junior barrister (g, h);
  • 4 relating to awards he has won (i, j, k and l);
  • 3 relating to things he has done after being prime minister (m, n, o)
  • plus two relating to his constituency (p, q).

When we get that far through the alphabet before reaching even the constituency categories it seems to me that we should think carefully about trimming categories related to the central part of a notable person's career without first considering the wider problem of the more tangential categories which attach to such people. Is it really a defining characteristic of Blair that he is in Category:Yale University faculty?

It seems to me that there are basically 4 options elating to these categories: a) keep as is, in parallel with lists; b) delete once lists have been created; c) rename them to longer names (but note previous controversy); and d) keep the categories for maintenance purposes, but make them {{hidden}} (editors involved in their maintenance can see them by going to Special:Preferences and checking a box on the "misc" tab). I'd welcome suggestions on how and where to start that wider discussion, since the previous venue of Category talk:British MPs seems to have been unused since 2006, because that category is now several layers higher up the category tree. There is no directly-appropriate wikiproject, the closest apparently being the inactive British Government, the quiet UK Parliament constituencies, though Peerage is also somewhat relevant.

I hope that these categories will not be deleted until there is a clear consensus for a better solution. Attaching 55 timebombs in the form of {{listify}} tags seems to be to be a very poor substitute for a proper re-examination of how to organise all these articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with BHG. Cat clutter is a big problem in bios; what parliaments a parliamentarian has sat in is core defining to me; crap categories about religion, race, and short-term things he/she did before garnering notability and the various prizes typically awarded to people who already have notability clutter the whole scheme. Since the community is unwilling to divest itself of every race, ethnicity, religion, former job, miscellaneous award, etc. cat's we're left to either delete the core defining categories or be left with so many categories on the very notable to make categories less useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 3 March 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_27&oldid=1138392178"