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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 18:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep it short, otherwise the similar Category:ELDR has to be called Category:European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party. Intangible 23:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The usual policy is against abreviations, except in a few special cases such as NASA and NASCAR. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. Michael 09:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose IDU is not a widely familiar abbreviation. Olborne 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose saves typing, but limits clarity. --Dhartung | Talk 20:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 21:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. The standard for political parties/groupings is also against abbreviations, consistent with the norm, so ELDR needs expanding.--Mereda 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:27, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

transfer from PROD as PROD does not and should not do categories 132.205.45.110 22:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is self-promotion, nothing else. Wikipedia:Companies,_corporations_and_economic_information/Notability_and_inclusion_guidelines

02:03, 21 July 2006 - User:Jessemonroy650

• Delete as article associated with category, Reward websites, does not exist as of this timestamp: David Kernow 03:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article exists now. They aren't noble organizations, but that doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't cover them. Sumahoy 22:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have withdrawn vote accordingly. Regards, David Kernow 17:01, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The automated mass renaming of the Academy Award categories seems to be over now, but some have slipped through the cracks. In at least one case this is because it was omitted last time.

• Category:Best Actor Oscar rename Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners
• Category:Best Actress Oscar rename Category:Best Actress Academy Award winners
• Category:Best Film Editing rename Category:Best Film Editing Academy Award winners
• Category:Costume Design Academy Award winners rename Category:Best Costume Design Academy Award winners
• Category:Best Song Academy Award rename Category:Best Song Academy Award winners
• Category:Best Supporting Actor Oscar rename Category:Best Supporting Actor Academy Award winners
• Category:Best Supporting Actress Oscar rename Category:Best Supporting Actress Academy Award winners
• Rename all Casper Claiborne 22:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --musicpvm 01:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 06:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, doesn't seem controversial, and since the others were already moved, just makes sense. --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Golfcam 02:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Kayaker 00:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spurious category, non encyclopedic ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It isn't important what television shows a celebrity watches. Casper Claiborne 22:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote, but a comparison with Category:Star Trek fans may be helpful to voters. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cfd'd that category also, see above. Tim! 09:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete C56C 02:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, and no citations on most pages to support cat tag. ThuranX 03:46, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete What's next, "Celebrities who like the color blue?" --Rubber cat 04:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per strangeness... Michael 09:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete already listed in the article Doctor Who fandom. Tim! 09:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Athenaeum 13:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete apparent fancruft.--Firsfron of Ronchester 20:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 00:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused since creation in December 2005. - LA @ 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Presumably this is something to do with Doctor Who, but I don't see the use of it. Hawkestone 19:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete duplicate of Category:New Series Adventures. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • shouldnt that be renamed to something more obvious too? (delete). BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, that's what they are called, see New Series Adventures (Doctor Who) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, if you look at the category's history it used to be a subcat of Category:Wikipedians who like Doctor Who. But that category isn't subdivided by Doctor, nor should it be IMO. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (see above) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete C56C 02:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete empty (and unlikely to be used) category.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; too vague a name, even if used. David Kernow 17:02, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 18:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 7 categories listed below do not follow the same form as the other 27 national categories:

• Category:Beaches in Bangladesh
• Category:Beaches in Cuba
• Category:Beaches in Greece
• Category:Beaches in India
• Category:Beaches in Jamaica
• Category:Beaches in Monaco
• Category:Beaches in Norway
• Rename all to Category:Beaches of Foo Chicheley 10:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Honbicot 18:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; I also propose that we rename all "Beaches of Foo" not nominated to Category:Beaches in Foo. See a couple sections above this vote; towns are "in" not "of", so beaches should also be "in" not "of." --M@rēino 19:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Towns are settlements but beaches are landforms, so different conventions apply. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) states that "of" is used for landforms. When this item is complete, beaches should be added to the list of landforms on that page. Chicheley 21:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Cloachland 21:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to Category:Beaches of Foo as per Chicheley above -- MrDolomite | Talk 00:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: I'm relisting this because none of the cats were tagged. Original discussion. --Kbdank71 18:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. An unfortunate oversight on my part. Chicheley 19:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Somewhat unrelated question: Would numbered highways be "of" or "in"? I'd think it would be "of", for one main reason: a jurisdiction sometimes maintains highways inside another due to agreements between them. For instance Interstate 684 crosses a corner of Connecticut but is all maintained by New York. It is in theory possible for a state highway "of" A to be completely "in" B. --SPUI (T - C) 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Natural features goer "of", human-made ones get "in", though I see the point in SPUI's aside about roading. Grutness...wha? 01:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. C56C 02:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Relating to the in/of choice for landform by country categories, I wanted to provide a link to centralized discussions of this matter that have taken place at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Landforms by country. Kurieeto 20:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic by country ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Speedy Delete all, G4 recreation of deleted content Category:Freeways ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs), WP:POINT creation, duplicates parent, nearly all entries are also in parent, and parent was recently kept, with full discussion. William Allen Simpson 18:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: the parent was kept despite consensus that it was not a suitable name, because there was "not enough" consensus on what a better name would be. This is my attempt at choosing a more suitable name. --SPUI (T - C) 19:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – there was not a true consensus on the fact that it was not a suitable name, and freeways and motorways were dismissed as good alternatives. This however, is a bit over the top in my opinion. honestly, it looks a bit more obnoxious than anything else man. seriously. You never told me what your atlas called a highway, btw. I'd suggest taking a look. lensovet 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment William Allen Simpson closed the first discussion as a "no consensus" in dubious circumstances, and that closure was overturned. He is in a very small minority in favouring the pre-existing name. Chicheley 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop the personal attacks. The closure was recently upheld and sustained, the circumstances were not "dubious". --William Allen Simpson 19:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • While it is not a personal attack, it may be poisoning the well to mention his initial closure, as it was later closed (though still improperly IMO) by an uninvolved editor. --SPUI (T - C) 19:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • He should have disclosed his prior role himself, given the controversial nature of his actions. Chicheley 22:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This has no relevance to the current discussion. Since the initial closure the matter has been reopened and then closed by an uninvolved editor. lensovet 21:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Would it have been better if I had removed the articles from the parent? If so, I will do that. Limited-access road is still just as ambiguous. --SPUI (T - C) 18:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • • • I can't agree. William Allen Simpson has gone to great lengths to protect names that he favours, but which aren't popular, his denigration of serious suggestions is not constructive. Chicheley 22:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I would support renaming this Category:Freeways or Category:Freeways and motorways if it is clear that it will have the same scope. --SPUI (T - C) 19:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have (as far as I know) informed everyone involved in the previous discussion, no matter what name they preferred, of this discussion. --SPUI (T - C) 19:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "Freeways in..." or "Motorways in...", or "Freeways and motorways in...", or, hell, at this point I'd settle for anything besides the sheerly uninformative title of "limited-access roads". — Jul. 21, '06 [19:13] <freak|>
  • Do you have a problem with just merging the contents into Category:Limited-access roads while the heated discussion on what should be used tries to reach a consensus? Keeping these categories, which are not likely to gain consensus in my opinion, appears to only confuse the classification scheme. I think considering a rename while the discussion on what is a freeway would be putting the cart before the horse. Vegaswikian 19:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Both these and the limited access category into the most popular choice from the two previous debates, ie category:Freeways and motorways. Chicheley 19:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems that people are trying to create a taxonomy of road classifications that will work for all variations of English in all countries around the world. I don't think this is possible. To create workable categories I think we have to abandon the idea of putting these roads in technically correct classifications with a standardized naming scheme. Instead, I think we should discuss the category as a whole, and come up with general lay terms for all these roads. Let's start at the top: Category:Roads. The question is, "should there be a single taxonomy, or multiple taxonomies?" I think a single taxonomy is impossible. So what are the possible taxomies? There seems to be attributes like, speed, access, cross traffic, etc... Perhaps each naming of a road (e.g. "freeway") could be in several different attribute categories. I'm just brainstorming here, and perhaps with some more brainstorming input there is a creative solution that would be acceptable to all. -- Samuel Wantman 19:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct. We've done that already. That's how we ended up with "Limited-access roads", with each particular naming (Expressway, Motorway, etc.) under each country. Sure, they are "Controlled Access Highways" in Canada, but they are certainly not "Freeways". In the US, there are roads designated "freeway" by signage having sections with at-grade crossings and traffic lights. This category name is nonsensical, and we'd have to remove the categories for most of the US states! And all of China! --William Allen Simpson 20:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you remove British lifts from Category:elevators? --SPUI (T - C) 20:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concept of a freeway, whatever it is called, is a worldwide concept. We do not split categories by dialects and languages - for instance there is no Category:lifts to go with Category:elevators. --SPUI (T - C) 20:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can't just bung things together because they are similar. There is no accepted "abstract" type of road that motorways, freeways, Autobahns, etc. are members of - except possibly "dual carriageway", and that is broader than you would probably like (not to mention inaccurate, with some obscure motorways/freeways being single carriageway). More importantly - there is no single term. People in the UK/Ireland do not call US freeways and German autobahns "motorways". Neither is it acceptable to use "freeway" as a generic term, as a freeway is a term that really only applies to road types in certain countries. zoney ♣ talk 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google searches of "German freeway" or "German motorway" or "French freeway" or "French motorway" do yield a good number of results that seem to indicate that the Autobahns and Autoroutes are freeways/motorways. --Polaron | Talk 21:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Duplicate of "Category:Limited Access Roads". JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Freeways" or "Freeways and motorways". The meaning of "limited access road" is too varied worldwide. "Freeways and motorways" as a road classification has a well-defined universal meaning. The specific terms may not be popular in all localities but the meaning is clear when it is used almost anywhere. --Polaron | Talk 20:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the reverted change to [

• • Does the reverted change to Limited-access road (only uing the first two sections) help this. I think the intro and following section really cover the issue since it is a concept rather than a technical term and makes clear that you need to look in other places for the local usage definition. If we use the term as an umbrella concept, it should make it easier to accept Category:Limited-access roads as a top level category for roads that are called different things in different places. Vegaswikian 21:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• William is not content with going through CFD; he is also marking the categories for speedy deletion despite the views here. I have already reverted him twice; can someone else do it a third time? --SPUI (T - C) 21:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove and simply add articles to Category:Types of road if that is what the articles are about. Or Category:Road classifications or whatever category is applicable. It does not make sense to try and provide a category for motorways, freeways, etc. alone, as there is nowhere to draw the line, and these things are merely similar concepts, but how similar is relative. zoney ♣ talk 21:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles are about specific freeways. --SPUI (T - C) 21:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then, use Category:Freeways as a parent for Category:Freeways in the United States, etc. Use Category:Motorways for Category:Motorways in the United Kingdom, etc. Use Category:Types of road as a parent for Category:Freeways, Category:Motorways, etc. zoney ♣ talk 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Category:elevators includes lifts. --SPUI (T - C) 20:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, elevator and lift are synonyms across dialects. Motorway and freeway are not - heck, it seems people in places that use the word freeway can't even agree what one is. Enough with the flawed analogy already. zoney ♣ talk 22:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Road types}} is a proposed grouping that at least shows all of the various road type names. It provides a picture of all of the road types involved. Vegaswikian 08:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• So far, not a single person has agreed that this is a good category name. -- The Speedy Deletion should go forward. --William Allen Simpson 22:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Freeways and motorways per previous discussion. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 00:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC) *Delete as nom. C56C 02:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How about this: have one category with a very broad name ("limited access highways" or something similar) and break that down into Category:Freeways, Category:Motorways, Category:Expressways (which are limited access, but not through interchanges as freeways and motorways are), and so on and so forth. Would that work? —Scott5114↗ 09:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - expressway is an ambiguous term. We also don't split based on dialect - there's no Category:lifts to go with Category:elevators. --SPUI (T - C) 16:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC) *rename to Category:Freeways and motorways Honbicot 15:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree with zoney's suggestion above to use Category:Types of road (or something similarly generic) as the root category and then expand into appropriate country/region-specific terms in subcategorization. older ≠ wiser 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you split Category:elevators into "appropriate country/region-specific terms"? --SPUI (T - C) 17:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have an opinion on that. Propose it here and see what happens. older ≠ wiser 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That would be a violation of WP:POINT, as I know such a split would be stupid. --SPUI (T - C) 21:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert creation (aka delete or rename to whereever they came from). The names are bad. (I'm still not sure it's a speedy, though. Bad/misleading name is not a CSD reason.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Roads with full control of access and no cross traffic. It may not be elegant, but is it not what is meant, and country neutral? Sumahoy 22:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• This is an utterly, utterly ridiculous name for a category, and is far worse than any of the prior alternatives. Delete and/or rename...I don't care, just don't keep this absurdity as is. Bearcat 07:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These names are accurate and easy to understand, and the length is not excessive. Landolitan 16:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Freeways and Motorways, and per-country cats to the more specific terminology as appropriate, or whatever the hell else per FoN. May or may not be WP:POINT, isn't a G4. Alai 16:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Names of roads with full control of access and no cross traffic (or something like that). There are also some articles in this category (such as Hsuehshan Tunnel) that appear to belong in some other category instead. Ae-a 13:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all references, articles and categories to "Freeways and Motorways" as originally suggested. The discussion and voting for changing "Freeway" to "Freeway and Motorway" was incorrect in making the change to "Limited Access". It should be accepted that the change to Limited Access was a mistake. The current situation is clearly unpopular and will continue to provoke questions and sugestions to rename. SilkTork 17:51, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Fictional Businesses and Category:Fictional companies to category:Fictional businesses --Kbdank71 17:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from speedy. Why does this category exist? It's a subcategory of category:Fictional companies that leads nowhere else. I say merge into category:Fictional companies.--Mike Selinker 22:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps it could be a parent for fictional bars, restaurants, stores, etc? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Fictional companies. --musicpvm 23:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into businesses or companies as long as there aren't two separate categories. --musicpvm 00:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The articles are about businesses which are very likely not companies. Chicheley 10:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I haven't seen the incorporation papers, I'm going to guess that Mega Lo Mart is a company. But that's a good point, since these things don't have real-world legal statuses. It's fine to merge category:Fictional companies and category:Fictional Businesses into a correctly capitalized category:Fictional businesses instead.--Mike Selinker 13:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mike Selinker. - LA @ 16:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: category:Fictional companies wasn't tagged for renaming, so I'm relisting this. Original discussion. --Kbdank71 17:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Category:Fictional companies should be retained as one would expect to find it under that name and in Category:Companies. Hawkestone 19:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which nom? Do you mean that both Category:Fictional companies and Category:Fictional Businesses (caps fixed) should be kept, or that they should be merged into Category:Fictional companies? If the former, does the current structure bother you, where businesses is a subcat of the more specific companies? ×Meegs 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be factually incorrect. Category:Fictional companies should be a subcategory of Category:Fictional businesses. Hawkestone 18:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Fictional companies. The distinction is too small to warrant separate cats, and, as Mike S alludes to above, many works of fiction do not provide this level of detail. I know that to some, the word company is reserved for corporations, but in order to match its well-established parent, Category:Companies, I prefer Category:Fictional companies. Merging to Category:Fictional businesses is fine with me too, though. ×Meegs 20:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge both into the more inclusive option of Category:Fictional businesses. Carina22 16:31, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per User:Meegs. And like Meegs, I don't care whether the post-merge result is Fictional companies or Fictional businesses, though I too prefer Category:Fictional companies. Kayaker 00:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Category:Fictional businesses. There are many businesses that are not companies, such as partnerships and sole proprietorships. Landolitan 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second attempt to sort out this name (see recent first attempt). Rationale: to follow parent Category:Foreign relations of Japan's name format (and improve grammar). David Kernow 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 16:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. C56C 02:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 20:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 17:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smith is an all-women's college, so graduates are considered alunae, not alumni. I know that the category is relatively unpopulated right now, but there are at least a couple dozen people that could fit in it. cbustapeck 15:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is technically correct, but do we want to create the impression that schools should have two gender-differentiated categories for their graduates? It seems like this would do that.--Mike Selinker 16:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the publications that I've seen from women's colleges, they tend to make a point of using "alumnae". Alumni can refer to men or men and women. My primary concern is for the sake of consistency: we already have Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae and Category:Alumnae of women's colleges - do you think that those should be renamed, then?cbustapeck 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If consistency is the concern, these categories are the only two (or would the only three) in the parent (Category:Alumni by university in the United States) to use -ae instead of -i. Which consistency is more important? siafu 17:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • siafu has it right, I think. I propose we leave this one alone and reverse merge Category:Mount Holyoke College alumnae to Category:Mount Holyoke College alumni and Category:Alumnae of women's colleges to Category:Alumni of women's colleges. If we get too much disagreement on this, the word "graduates" is available, but I'd like to stick with alumni.--Mike Selinker 18:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alumni is actually more broad than graduates, as it includes those who have attended but not graduated. siafu 18:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let's please not go with graduates for this reason. As it is now, the only U.S. schools with graduates categories are the military academies (and we made them each a subcat of an alumni cat in order to match). ×Meegs 19:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Let's keep things simple. "Alumni" is a gender-neutral word in English. Osomec 16:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is a member of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. Plus, I agree with Osomec. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. C56C 02:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for consistency's sake over pedantic precision. --Dhartung | Talk 20:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as above. Golfcam 02:36, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and Alumnus. --Usgnus 20:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename Accuracy comes first in encyclopaedias over tabloidese. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 21:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Oppose Alumni is the English word. ReeseM 04:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Dhartung and ReeseM. --BrownHairedGirl 14:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed name matches the intention of the category. The lead article is Pundit (politics), which could be moved to political pundit. Mixing in political pundits, business pundits, technology pundits and so on would not make the category more useful. Chicheley 14:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Chicheley 14:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as nom. C56C 02:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Honbicot 15:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:38, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a sibling and near-duplicate of the recently deleted category:Articles with unsourced statements and is a bad idea for all the same reasons, starting with the one pointed out on the category itself, namely that it is a self-reference. I would particularly like to emphasise that this is not a help for readers, and it is not needed as a warning to them, as the notes and boxes in the articles do that more than adequately. As it is can be added by templates it often appears at the head of the list of categories on an article, where it is an impediment to navigation, and suggests that Wikipedia is optimised for editors rather than readers (who outnumber regular editors by thousands to one), which makes Wikipedia look amateurish. The category is vast, and I see no prospect of it ever being cleared, which is not a bad thing, but just an inevitable outcome of the Wikipedia process. If is sometimes found on excellent articles with many references, when one person decides there are not quite enough; fair enough in some cases perhaps, but that action shouldn't interfere with the category system. I don't see how it is of much use in finding articles to work on, and subdivision would be a disaster as some articles could end up in 20 of the subcategories. It just has to go. Chicheley 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Chicheley 14:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This category is associated with Template:unreferenced and Template:primarysources, so any discussion of the category should start there, not here. siafu 14:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly disagree. This is the page where we discuss how to optimise the category system. I am not proposing deletion of the templates as I don't have a problem with them, and the two issues should not be confused. Chicheley 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not confusing the two issues is exactly why I strongly suggest discussing it on the template talk page first. Deleting this category is pointless as it will be instantly recreated by using the templates unless said templates are first editted to not include the category. siafu 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are plainly and demonstrably wrong as the similar category has not been recreated. A template cannot create a category without human intervention. Chicheley 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • You misunderstand me clearly. Editors will recreate this category. Put simply, in order to get rid of this, the template must be editted, as a category redlink at the bottom of the page is much worse than another blue link in the list. In order to edit the template, you'll have to have consensus on the template talk. Going from here to there is completely backwards. siafu 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I do not misunderstand you, and I am relying on a precedent while you are merely speculating. There are no "redlinks at the bottom of the page" in respect of the other category which was deleted, and if I see it again I will nominate it for speedy deletion. It is out of order to say that the categories for discussion page cannot discuss the fate of a particular category. Chicheley 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "The category is vast may never be cleared", per Chicheley, this category obviously has plenty of demand. Additionally, the motivation presented for removing this category seems to be more about avoiding the problem of unsourced statement than optimizing categorization. siafu 15:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It proves nothing of the kind. All it proves is that the template is added to lots of articles, which is not under dispute. The category has only been added to the template once. You misinterpretation of the motivation is absolute. There is no motivation other than to optimize categorization by reducing the number of distracting categories which are of little use to readers and by allowing categories to be put in a sensible order manually, without clumsy interventions by software. Chicheley 16:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I misunderstand, it is only by reading your words. In particular: "If is sometimes found on excellent articles with many references, when one person decides there are not quite enough; fair enough in some cases perhaps, but that action shouldn't interfere with the category system." The solution in this case is to remove the template from the article not eliminate the category altogether. The only reason removing it would prove impossible is if consensus is in favor of its presence. Eliminating the category is just a means of avoiding the problem. siafu 17:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • My words were clear enough. I am against the category, not the template. I want the category removed in all cases, and I am certainly not going to trawl through thousands of categories to look for cases where the template can be removed to reduce the damage done by the category. Chicheley 17:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • In that case, you argument that this category is used on excellent articles is absolutely meaningless and irrelevant, and your words were not clear enough. siafu 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is neither meaningless nor irrelevant. It is intended to expose the way this category can misrepresent the situation if the template is added overenthusiatically or if it isn't removed when additional references are added. At the very least the current name is ill thought out, as it can be read as "Articles that lack any sources". Indeed if you asked people to consider the phrase cold, I would expect them to assume it to mean exactly that. Chicheley 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • It is both; if there's a problem with its use on particular pages then the solution to that problem is much more specific than the deletion of the category. Whatever argument you make (including the ones you have) in favor of deleting the category outright are not supported by the fact that it's occasionally misused. The same goes for the choice of name. siafu 17:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • It is neither; it is an example of one of the many problems with this category, the inclusion of which on an article is lamentable in every case. Chicheley 12:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • A specific problem with some uses of a template does not provide support for general removal of all uses of the category. It's very simple. siafu 14:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I think I have made it very clear that in my opinion all uses of the template to add a category are bad, however some are even worse than others. Chicheley 15:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. What we really need is a choice between "editing mode" and "reading mode", but on the whole Wikipedia's presentation is skewed towards the needs of editors, which can make it look rather scrappy. Most people don't edit anyway, but they might donate if their experience is optimised. Carina22 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as self reference. Hawkestone 19:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per well argued nomination. Casper Claiborne 22:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as deleting the category will not solve any of the problems raised. It is my personal opinion that the templates should only be used on talk pages to avoid clutter in the article and will solve the "impediment to navigation" problem the nom raises. Nom would also be wise to post actual statistics on the category itself. Discussion needs to be moved to template talk pages per siafu as deletion solves nothing. —Viriditas | Talk 01:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion may not be what you want, but it solves all the problems that bother me. The talk page suggestion is a non-starter as the category placement is generated by templats which should be no the article page. Chicheley 13:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree with Viriditas. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 01:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Keep category. C56C 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Passer-by 13:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not useful to readers. Athenaeum 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The name is literally untrue in most cases and the category is needlessly self-denigratory. Honbicot 15:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Would one see this in a professional encyclopedia? Wikipedia needs to improve its standards of presentation. Nonomy 17:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The contents are totally random and this category is therefore useless for browsing. Olborne 18:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a maintenance category. It's not meant for browsing. siafu 21:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some of us use this category, which is a maintenance category, to help fill in gaps in sourcing in articles. The fact that necessary and used maintenance categories are proposed for deletion here, when being maintenance categories they are intended as links to articles that need fixing, just shows the ludicrousness of these deletion pages, not this category. But then looking at many of the comments on this page, it seems that a lot of users don't know what maintenance categories are and how they are used. They operate fundamentally differently to ordinary categories and once an article is fixed it is taken off the category. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete It's a pain when the first four or five categories at the bottom of the article are non subject matter related, so having one less of these administrative categories would be useful. More could be deleted too, in particular all of those related to sources, eg 1911 Britannica. Cloachland 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally random connections are not category material. If there was a means of hiding this from all users apart from those who requested to see it, then it would be fine, but as things stand it is category clutter. Golfcam 02:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 07:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, not the "encyclopedia every reader has to watch being edited". The user interface should be kept clean. Choalbaton 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It was editors, not readers, who made Wikipedia great. Besides: you know what looks even more amateurish than an unsourced article that says it's unsourced? Well, it's the unsourced article that doesn't say it's unsourced. But hey, that's the template not the category! The rationale for deletion is seriously fumbled. GregorB 21:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is to be made great for readers. It would be of no significance without readers, and it would be a credit to Wikipedia if all editors would show the humility not put their needs first. Your rational is seriously fumbled as there is no proposal to remove the statements that articles need extra sources. It will still say it in the relevant place, but it will no longer superflously say it in another random and irrelevant place. Chicheley 21:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If I understand correctly, you are saying that: 1) this category makes Wikipedia amateurish, while the template that says the same does not, and 2) this category distracts readers, while the much more obtrusive template that says the same does not. That doesn't make sense to me. GregorB 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The template are a regrettable but necessary warning, but the category is redundant as a warning since the template is all that is needed for that purpose, and is merely an obstacle to navigation. A professional encyclopedia would not inflict such own goals, as they would suggest (and the suggestion is quite correct in the case of Wikipedia) that some of the editors are rather self absorbed and more interested in their own needs than the needs of readers. Chicheley 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as requested. Ramseystreet 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 22:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Not a help for readers" isn't a convincing argument for deletion, since there are plenty of categories used throughout wikipedia which facilitate the work of editors. The fact that it makes "Wikipedia look amateurish" by being early in the list of categories is unconvincing, since there are plenty of other examples of categories that do this (for example, stub categories can appear pretty much anywhere in the list). The fact that it is "sometimes found on excellent articles" is a reason to remove it in those cases, not to delete the category. The category serves the important role that most of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance do, which is to help editors improve wikipedia. Kayaker 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • So you are arguing that a bad category should be kept because there are other bad categories. Ideally all the maintenance categories should be deleted, or at least hidden by default, but I have nominated this one because it is the very worst I have seen.Chicheley 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The title is misleading and the category is not useful a navigational aid. Landolitan 16:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If the category is deleted, there's always Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Unreferenced. —Keenan Pepper 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep: wrong venue, per Variable. On the substantiative question: keep anyway, the "professionalism" arguments against maintenance "self-references" are seriously wrong-headed. The way for the "professionalism" of Wikipedia to be increased is to improve the article contents to be in line with our own defined standards, not to sweep identified problems with articles under the rug to make the article page look superficially better. The arguments deployed for this deletion could be replicated (equally erroneously) for deleting all articlespace maintenance templates and categories (including dispute and controversy notices, stub tags, etc). Alai 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What that amounts to is that you think the discussion should be restricted to people who use this category. Don't you think that might be a rather skewed sample? It is nonsense to suggest that deleting this category will sweep a problem under the carpet. Merchbow 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In what way does it amount to any such thing? I don't use the category, so I'm arguing that my own comment should be discounted, in some way I didn't notice? You inference seems poorly grounded. However, I do think the people discussing this should give some consideration to people who use it as a cleanup resource (which isn't to say I imagine they will, especially not retrospectively, or that this should or would be any sort of "restriction" on said discussion). As opposed to giving such inordinate weight to the "makes the article looks less nice" argument. It speaks, not of prioritising readers over editors, but of prioritising the appearance of professionalism, over actual concern for facilitating achieving real professional standards. Alai 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • People who use the category will see the nomination notice. Good presentation is part of real professionalism. I would be surprised if you could find a professional reference book editor who would disagree with that. As has been said before, the template appears in the article, so the inference that deleting the category will amount to some sort of cover-up in nonsensical. Merchbow 01:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Inaccurate, annoying and, as per —Keenan Pepper also redundant. On the basis of his information it may be that all article maintenance and template categories can be deleted. Merchbow 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that conclusion pretty much makes my point for me. If your sole aim is making the category list look as reader-friendly as possible, without regard to editing concerns, then agitate for WP:STATIC, WP:STABLE, and a namespace distinction between article-space and other categories in software, that would facilitate configuration for "tidying up" the appearance of the article, without interfering with its development as a work-in-progress. Oh, and do something about Category:Living people, for a start (a "maintenance category" its impossible to remove by "maintenance" actibvity (well, short of wetwork, at least)). And "inaccuate" in what way? There are no articles on wikipedia that lack sources? Or are you arguing for deletion to cure actual or prevent possible misuse? Alai 23:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:STATIC and WP:STABLE are irrelevant to this matter, but in any case I don't think they are viable, so I will not be acting on your suggestion. As for Category:Living people, like many Wikipedians, I would love to see the back of it, but Jimbo Wales won't allow it. The existence of one flaw should never be used as an excuse to preserve other flaws. The name of this category is inaccurate, or at least imprecise, because many of the articles in it have some sources. One can quibble the precise meaning of the word "lacking", but it is certain that some people would misunderstand the present name. Merchbow 00:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not holding my breath about any of the above being implemented in any sort of hurry either, but they're logical courses if one takes the view that "wikipedia must look as 'professional' as possible, and editorial convenience can go jump in the lake", which seems to be the spirit of this nom, and the implied intent to delete every other such text-oriented rather than topic-oriented category. They're certainly not irrelevant, as they speak to the same urge to "protect" readers from the "beware, under construction" aspects that otherwise pretty inherent to wikpedia (or indeed, wiki-anything). OTOH, category namespace separation has been floated by one of the devs, so I assume it isn't horrifically unlikely, and would certainly be a much more general "solution" to the alleged "problem". No idea if the idea went any place after that, though. This isn't a matter of one flaw justifying another: no case has been made to my satisfaction there's any actual flaw here. If an article's "issues" are sufficient to merit a "warning" template, the presence of a category asserting the same condition can hardly be an undue impediment in any real sense. Removing one, and keeping the other, has about the same effect as far as a reader is concerned, but is clearly much less useful for editors. Talk-page-ising them would regain most of the category benefits, though the double-tagged would obviously mean double-handling, and almost immediately lead to inconsistency between the two. There's nothing inherently inaccurate about the category: if it's being misused, that should be fixed by removing template usages, not by removing the category, and leaving template misuses that much more "out of sight and out of mind" -- and thus that much more likely to stay that way. If it's ambiguous as to degree of unsourcedness, it should be renamed, or split into Category:Articles requiring additional sources and Category:Articles with no sources, or something to that effect. (I hereby predict that if this is deleted, it'll be recreated under some such name, whereupon there will be shouts of "G4!", without much consideration of potentially different scope.) We do seem to agree on one thing: that the rationale of this CFD applies to every meta-category, and is in no way particular to this one, which strongly suggests to me that this is more sensibly the realm of centralised discussion and guideline creation, rather than "picking off stranglers". Alai 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 00:20, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per arguments already made. Calsicol 17:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 22:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a little more juducious use, and the deletion of that lame template I pissed off some Euro-environmentalist by pointing out (with references) that something wasn't as dangerous as the EU would lead one to believe, and the next day, every other article I ever worked on has these 'administrative' tags and 'categories' pinned to the top. I don't even bother to submit to political articles because one needs massive citations to avoid having your stuff watered down to NPOV, even when a politician is 99% evil. Similarly I don't do 'heavy' science articles unless I'm willing to verify my content. My example is Blinkies which I wrote and someone put this tag on. I looked all over the internet for a patent or something to no avail. All I can say is that they exist, I've bought hundereds of them, I can (and did) give web adddresses for dozens of companies that sell them (with pictures). In short, I am the source and for something as trivial as a blinky toy it's a little pretentious to require me to 'prove' they exist. I do like the small citation mark that's in some articles, that lets me know there may be some doubt as to that one statment's accuracy or neutrality.

Tiki God 10:26, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps a little work too I've also noticed that the sources for an article are often in other similar articles. It took me 2 minutes to find the IEC/ANSI codes for the size and voltage of an AA battery over in List of battery sizes. It seems to me that template spammers just throw this up and don't bother to look (even on Wikipedia) for a source, which is really annoying considering that it goes at the top of a the page. One shouldn't be able to put up that lame template unless they actually spent at least 5 minutes looking for a source.

Tiki God 12:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category's current name is too long, awkward, and unwieldy. It should be more concise, avoiding such colloquialism as "around the clock". Larry V (talk | contribs) 13:52, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Larry V. Alphachimp ^talk 14:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Seems fine. This category does seem like a useful one. --SPUI (T - C) 14:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't think that that's the point. Larry wants to rename the category to something more intuitive. Alphachimp ^talk 14:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the new name seems fine. The other sentence was added in case someone decides to argue for deletion. --SPUI (T - C) 16:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Ok, sorry that I misinterpretted you. Alphachimp ^talk 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carina22 17:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The new name is also slightly clunky, but it's much better than the present one, and I can't think of a better alternative. --CComMack (t&#149;c) 23:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename C56C 02:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have to agree with SPUI that This category does not seem very useful, and running 24 hours doesn't seem like an important enough attribute. I used to take a more inclusionist postition that categories like this were harmless, but as the number of "trivial" categories seems to be increasing, I find myself wanting more and more of them to be deleted. If someone can explain the utility of this category I'm willing to listen. -- Samuel Wantman 08:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it is useful. --SPUI (T - C) 03:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. Passer-by 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the nominator. Pacific Coast Highway ^{(blah • Closed Captioned)} 03:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why is this encylopedic? Isn't this type of information for Wikitravel? If renamed, it should be Category:Rapid transit systems that operate 24/7 otherwise they would only need to operate long hours one day a week. Another issue is that a service can qualify with greatly reduced operations or not all lines running 24 hours. To clarify that fact would be difficult in a category. I also believe we should avoid category names that start with a number.

Note: This entry was moved from the duplicate July 25 discussion.

Vegaswikian 16:47, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Change vote to Delete: To be honest, I never did find this category particularly useful; when all is said and done, it won't have many more than six or seven members, if even that many. I also have had concerns about systems qualifying with minimal 24-hour service. Contrary to the views of others, I have adamantly argued against the inclusion of the Chicago system as a 24-hour system because, if I recall correctly, only one or two of its lines runs during late nights, leaving an enormous percentage of its coverage area without 24-hour service. To me, round-the-clock service is something like the service offered in New York City, where nearly every station is served by one line or another at all times. Even some smaller systems like PATH serve all stations at all times, even if "all stations" only constitutes a dozen or so. Basically, I vote Delete for this category, but if that isn't the conclusion, it should be renamed at the very least. --Larry V (talk | contribs) 21:39, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above, or otherwise rename Landolitan 17:01, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These technical administrative categories are a real barrier to the creation of a quality category system. They tend to appear first at the bottom of the article because the text that creates them appears further up the article than the main list of topic-related categories. It is not helpful to the reader that this is one of the first categories on Adolf Hitler's article. It makes it look like Wikipedia has an unencyclopedic set of priorities, and is not focused on providing easy navigability to closely related articles. Chicheley 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Chicheley 13:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As above, this category is associated with Template:Multi-video start and can't be discussed alone. Chicheley, I suggest starting a discussion on Wikipedia talk:Categorization about this larger issue rather than making a mess by deleting a few maintenance categories alone. siafu 14:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary some of these templates are of sufficient merit to be retained while others are not, so they should be discussed one by one. Chicheley 14:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. This process is being conducted entirely backwards. siafu 15:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. siafu's contention that certain categories are out of bounds for Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is entirely out of place. Chicheley 17:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • As above, that's a straw man. The template is the place to start this conversation. siafu 17:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it is not. This page is called Wikipedia:categories for discussion. You voted here for the deletion of categories which have not been discussed elsewhere scores of times. Chicheley 13:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • This category is attached to the use of a template. It's not so heretical to suggest that the users of the template should be involved in the discussion as the result of the discussion here affects not just the use of the category but the use of the template as well. Just deleting the template without thinking about the other consequences is putting the cart before the horse. siafu 14:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Totally random connections like this are not category material. How about Category:Articles where the third word of the second paragraph is and? Golfcam 02:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This could grow and grow and grow. There have to be better ways of guiding readers to particular types of information than cluttering up articles with technical categories. Carina22 16:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How about Category:Articles with multiple pictures and category:Articles with multiple spelling errors? No thank you. Landolitan 16:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bad precedent. Categories should be topic-related. Merchbow 22:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:21, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Israel and Zionism to Category:Zionism
• Category:Zionism people to Category:Zionists

1. Broad topic, "Israel" is not informative. 2. Correct English. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 10:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 10:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. Not all Zionists live(d) in Israel. siafu 14:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Zionism people to Category:Zionists per nom;
  and split Category:Israel and Zionism into Category:Israel and Category:Zionism. I could try to implement this split, but am aware I'm not particularly qualified to do so. Anyone else?  Regards, David Kernow 15:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC), expanded 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think so. Category:Israel and Zionism basically functions as a Zionism category, the change is semantic. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 20:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is everything/one associated with Israel also associated with Zionism...?  Regards, David 02:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. That is why there should be 2 categories; category:Israel and category:Zionism. Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 14:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, I've expanded my vote above. Regards, David 17:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think there's anything to split, as I said before, Category:Israel and Zionism basically functions as a Category:Zionism, but ok... Psychomelodic User:Psychomelodic/me 17:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename in line with normal English usage. Hawkestone 17:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename C56C 03:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom ReeseM 23:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. --BrownHairedGirl 14:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. --Gabi S. 15:45, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest (a) rename to Category:National leaders related to a former leader; or (b) Category:Current national leaders related to a former leader if (to be) watched; or (c) delete as overly contingent. David Kernow 07:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per (c). (a) is a total non starter as until the last 200 years about 98% of national leaders were related to a former leader, ie they were members of a royal family. Second choice is (b). Choalbaton 12:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Trivial, and as mentioned, monarchies would overwhelm the category. siafu 14:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Family circumstances are rarely worth categorizing. Hawkestone 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename Category:Elected political leaders related to a former leader. Is a worthwhile category when focused on elected, not hereditary leaders (e.g., The two president George Bush, the Chamberlain brothers in the UK, two prime ministers father and son called Cosgrave in Ireland, etc etc.) FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 23:35, 21 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Delete. Serves no purpose. C56C 03:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, though I wouldn't oppose a better, more concise remake... Michael 09:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is human interest trivia, not a serious encyclopedic political category. Athenaeum 13:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per user:Jtdirl. — Instantnood 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is POV to assume that this is an essential characteristic of any modern politicians; shades of "Bush Family Conspiracy Theory" and that kind of thing. Piccadilly 20:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:The Beach Boys singles to category:The Beach Boys songs
• Category:The Beach Boys B-sides to category:The Beach Boys songs
• Category:The Beatles singles to category:The Beatles songs
• Category:The Beatles B-sides to category:The Beatles songs

These are the last, and potentially most troublesome, of the Singles by artist conversions. In the Beach Boys' case, all singles and B-sides by the band have been categorized, though they are all in the Songs category. In The Beatles' case, all singles and B-sides have been categorized, but they are not in the Songs category (only non-single, non-B-side Beatles songs are in the Songs category). I think we should merge all for the sake of consistency, but I'm open to other thoughts. The Beach Boys merges were offered up for discussion on Talk:The Beach Boys, and I've also informed Wikipedia talk: WikiProject The Beatles. Definitely say your peace if you don't want them merged.--Mike Selinker 06:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all for consistency. These two groups shouldn't be exceptions. --musicpvm 07:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pardon me if this is sacrilege, but I don't think it is very important whether a famous Beatles song was released as a single. Anyway, Wikipedia is sure to have information on Beatles and Beach Boys singles in discographies. Casper Claiborne 22:31, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. C56C 03:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Merchbow 22:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Singles and songs are quite different, and The Beatles singles were a hugely important subset of "songs". I'm quite sure that in this case it's helpful to readers to keep both. That said it won't be the end of the world if the decision is to delete. --kingboyk 08:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete/merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV name. Was discussed here a few weeks back but not acted upon. The three articles which are in it can move up one level to Category:History of Test cricket. -- I@n 06:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom -- I@n 06:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination and move the three articles to Category:History of Test cricket. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 12:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/move per BlackJack. --M@rēino 13:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete violated WP:NPOV. Michael 09:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. When I first saw the category listed, I had thought it was a subcat of Category:Standardized tests... :-) Kayaker 00:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ReeseM 04:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct term, although it should still be parented by Category:Lists of postal codes. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; a reasonable exception to allow abbreviations as almost no one has heard of the "Zone Improvement Plan". siafu 14:57, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, "ZIP code" is the correct term in the U.S., nobody uses "postal code". --musicpvm 15:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 19:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. C56C 03:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 22:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both as a misunderstanding of the use of categories. — FireFox 10:04, 21 July '06

and

Because of the name of the category, they will only ever have one article in them; and their presence on Wikipedia is not necessary. JD[^{don't talk}|_email] 02:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both; misunderstanding of categories' nature. David Kernow 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any categories other than for nationalities (and only one of those so far), and there might never be any, so this is a needless inconvenience. Chicheley 02:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Chicheley 02:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Just perusing the destination category I can see the need for at least four more nationality categories (Swedish, Norwegian, German, Canadian) and doubtless there are more with a reasonable population. siafu 15:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have totally missed the point. How can you possibly have thought that I meant no other categories for partiular nationalities would be created? I mean no categories other than those for nationalities exist, and likely none will ever exist. This this category is nothing but an inconvenient extra click. It is particularly inconvenient at this early stage of subcategorisation as one cannot see the uncategorised articles and the by nationality subcategories at the same time. Chicheley 17:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again insisting I've missed the point, and then wondering how that could possibly happen, I see. If it couldn't possibly happen, maybe it didn't? You seem to be inferring an assertion not made by me, though, so I'll just adress it later. As for the second; I'm not following the "inconvenience" of an extra click. Not only does it only apply to users searching for articles by perusing the category system from the top-down, which is by no means the only or clearly most popular way to do things, but it implies that the parent category being of a greater size is not itself inconvenient. Category:Heavy metal singers is not small (108 members), and nor is Category:American heavy metal singers (35 members). Subdividing by nationality is done in almost all other occupations categories, and it's even done for other musicians-by-genre categories, and there is no reason not to do it in this case. I'm stating above that there would be reasonably sized populations for such categories ("and only one of those so far"). As to whether or not there might ever be any other type of subdivision for this category, it doesn't matter. There may never be. That doesn't mean this one isn't a good idea; in fact, it makes it an even better idea as this rather large category could do with some chopping down. BTW, have you made any mention of this one over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal? siafu 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You think I am arguing against subdivision by nationality. What utter nonsense! My work on Wikipedia is primarily devoted to subcategorising people by nationality. It is beyond me how you can misintepret so many things so utterly. I am against this category because when the heavy metal singers are fully subdivided Category:Heavy metal singers by nationality will be the only item in Category:Heavy metal singers. As for now, it is even worse, because when a reader enters Category:Heavy metal singers they see a bunch of names and Category:Heavy metal singers by nationality and have no idea how much subcategorisation has been done. You did about Wikipedia:WikiProject Metal is utterly meaningless and out of place. Chicheley 18:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Quite frankly, your puzzlement about being "misinterpretted" is getting tiresome. For starters, the metal Wikiproject may well be able to suggest another way to subdivide this category, since you seem to be out of ideas- this is a category that needs subdivision. I don't think you are arguing against subdivision by nationality in general, but that you are arguing against it in this case because you said: I mean no categories other than those for nationalities exist, and likely none will ever exist. This this category is nothing but an inconvenient extra click. Are you or are you not arguing against the existence of this category? Are you arguing, then, that Category:Heavy metal singers should not be subdivided at all, simply because there is only one way to do it presently? If so, it would be a great idea to inquire at the wikiproject. If not, then there must be something in particular about subdividing by nationality. In the future, WP:AGF and keep in mind that, believe it or not, when people communicate in a written medium sometimes, just sometimes, what is written while being clear to the person who is writing it, is not clear to the person who is reading it, though both may be acting in good faith. Either way, I still believe that there is no reason to delete this category, and plenty of reason to keep, and I believe so for the reasons I've stated. siafu 18:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I also find your comments tiresome, not to mention patronising. My last comments were utterly clear on the issue of whether I think that Category:Heavy metal singers should be subdivided at all. Yes!!!! (Are you going to dispute that too?) Please pay me the courtesy of reading my comments with some reasonable amount of care, especially when they have been rephrased in the clearest possible manner. It is unreasonable to claim lack of clarity in statements which possess no ambiguity whatsoever. Chicheley 01:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've read your comments with great care, and this is obviously going nowhere. Your insistence on what is or is not "unreasonable" is ridiculous, and apparently a resolution is not your goal. Simply agree to disagree-- and vote against me because you disagree and we'll let that be that. siafu 01:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Hawkestone 19:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and fill category. Heavy metal is international and thus various members are from different nations. It is informative for a category to reflect a genre in different countries. But "singers" is too broad. Perhaps "Category:Heavy metal musicians by nationality." C56C 03:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If singers is broad, musicians is even more so. All singers are musicians, not all musicians are singers. siafu 05:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom That only applies to Category:Heavy metal singers by nationality. Category:American heavy metal singers has not tagged been tagged for merger. Cloachland 00:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Piccadilly 20:57, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Heavy metal singers per nom. ReeseM 23:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete as recreation of deleted content - EurekaLott 04:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is inappropriate as it will invariably become very large. McPhail 00:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is also already a list of deceased professional wrestlers. Clay4president
• Delete Not standard and not useful. Chicheley 01:14, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No living/dead categories by occupation.--Mike Selinker 01:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. David Kernow 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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