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 (no stated opposition). Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This is a followup nomination to these two nominations, which I closed as null and void for being improperly started. Here is the same set of nominations with the categories restored. No opinions as to the merits.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The reason I recommended these go (however awkwardly) is because both cats have fewer than five articles in each (one has only two) and they are potentially also redundant to each other. It's overcategorization, basically. Also does not help improve navigability to related articles. Montanabw(talk) 06:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This has been languishing now for two weeks. Can we PLEASE just kill this thing? Obviously, no one cares. Montanabw(talk) 18:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: For the vast majority of these characters, "straight" is not a defining characteristic, in that it is not dealt with in secondary sources. Thus, inclusion of fictional elements in such categories is entirely OR. Jclemens (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as per nom in regards to OR, furthermore category could literally include millions of entries and be unusable. Dayewalker (talk) 23:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep, I agree it's not a defining characteristic but truth is there are "Fictional gay males", "Fictional lesbians" and "Fictional bisexuals" categories and it's not necessarily a defining characteristic for these characters either. So the sexuality of a character has to stand out only if the character is LGBT, I very much disagree with that, that's exactly why I created this category. --Floeticsoulchild (talk) 23:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you have concerns about Category:Fictional gay males being a valid grouping, by all means nominate it for deletion and we'll discuss it. Creating a flawed cat to show how flawed existing cats are is not an approach I find especially persuasive though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OR, too many potential entries. deBivort 02:26, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Floeticsoulchild, I think you had good intentions, but because of the general (and regrettable) assumption that characters are heterosexual unless the character or author takes pains to state otherwise, most placements in this category are going to be original research. For example, taking at random a character you put in - how do we know Anthony Soprano Jr. is straight? Sure, he dates women in the series, but how do we know he isn't bisexual? Does he ever say he's straight? If he did say he was straight, how could we know that he wasn't just afraid of the kind of reaction a non-straight sexuality could get in the very traditional culture that he lives in? Sorry, but it's original research. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - I agree with the rationale of creator of this category. (Floeticsoulchild)--Oh boy my danny boy (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no rationale for a category that includes probably more than 95% of all ale literary characters. Davshul (talk) 14:54, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The characteristic of being "straight" is too common to warrant having a category for it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a non-defining characteristic that would include far too many fictional male characters to serve as any useful aid in navigation. Alansohn (talk) 21:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POINT. Category creator has stated above that this was created merely to illustrate his opposition to LGBT fictional character categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:15, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per RevelationDirect and Shawn in Montreal LtGen (talk) 10:15, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a norm tells you nothing. Almost all fictional characters would be in it. And very few fictional characters ever say "I am straight", so it would be all OR anyway.~ZytheTalk to me! 21:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. No episodes have articles of their own anymore, so its essentially just the one list, thus making the category obsolete. Harry Blue5 (talk) 21:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Subjective category Secretaccount 19:30, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Very subjective category. One editor seems to be adding films to this category according to his/her private definition of "twist ending", which is probably the way most of the items will be added. Of the items in the category, I disagree with all except one with which I am familiar. Of course, that's my personal opinion, but my point is that there will be endless disagreement about the contents of this category. Cresix (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective category, cannot be maintained objectively from sources. Yworo (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, subjective. As an example, take a book that's currently in there, The Horse and His Boy. I take it the "twist" is supposed to be that Shasta is the Prince, but that's a stock device and is utterly predictable given the rest of the plot. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If you've got a generous enough definition, almost every single thing ever made has some sort twist ending. Harry Blue5 (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without tight sourcing, it's original research.
Keep but with tight sourcing requirements. There are a fairly substantial number of fictional works which are referred in reliable sources to as having twist endings, many of which can be found, sourced, on List of plot twists. Assuming only articles with reliable sourcing are added to the category, there is very little reason to regard the category as "subjective" or in need of deletion, and in fact I see the category as being quite useful. If people disagree with the additions of particular articles to the category by a particular user, that should be discussed with the user in question, independently of the category's existence. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Having a twist in the ending is too common a literary device to make a usefully-sized category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:45, 30 December 2010 (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:American jazz musicians of Sicilian 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:upmerge as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge with the strong suggestion of nominating the Italian descent category for deletion as well.--TM 19:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Non-defining characteristic. Whatever atrocity occurred to ones parents is not necessarily defining to the children. TM 17:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep If you speak to any descendants of Holocaust survivors, it usually has a very strong impact on their life and defines them greatly for the rest of their lives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by אֶפְרָתָה (talk • contribs)
Delete per nominator. Secretaccount 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would support "children of Holocaust survivors," but not "descendants," because by the definition of "descendants" that has no end. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It obvious that "Whatever atrocity occurred to ones parents IS defining to the children". --Oh boy my danny boy (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)This account was blocked as a sockpuppet of an other user who voted here. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I guess as a non-descendants of Holocaust survivor, you say "Not really" because it did not happen to you so it means not much to you. To the people growing up with such parents, it meant a lot to them. To lose all your brothers, sisters, parents, watching them die in front of you, babies being ripped apart limb by limb, inhumane medical experiments, etc and survive, it affects your descendants. I respect your claim that would "Not really" define you, but that is not the norm amongst survivors.
As far a comparisons, comparison of children of murder victims (which is truly horrible) to people children of Holocaust survivors, key word being survivor, it is different due to them being raised with a living survivor, not a missing parent. Equally horrible, just different.--Oh boy my danny boy (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We all understand what the Holocaust entailed and you win no points for dramatic effect. For those who survived the Holocaust, it is most certainly defining, which is why we have Category:Holocaust survivors; but for the billions of descendants of atrocities (be they the Holocaust, genocides in Namibia, Rwanda, Bosnia etc, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, or any number of violent conflicts), it is simply not practical nor definitive. Ask yourself this: are any of them notable (in the Wikipedia sense) because they are a descendant of a Holocaust survivor?--TM 18:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Of the three people I can immediately identify in the category, none of them is known for anything having to do with the Holocaust; indeed, two of the three I wouldn't even have identified as Jewish. One would guess that some influence could be assumed, just as it could be assumed that I am influenced by being the child of someone effectively orphaned in the Great Depression, but it's also possible they went on living. It's clearly not a defining characteristic. Mangoe (talk) 19:11, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Category:Children of Holocaust survivors. I checked a bunch of the names in the category and they are indeed children (besides for being obviously descendants). Children of Holocaust survivors are clearly a notable intersection as attested by the multiple sources using this term and discussing this topic, specifically how the traumas of the Holocaust affected the upbringing.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename as Brewercrew. The near fate of a parent is laible to be highly defining. However, I agree this should be limited to children, not remoter descendants. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename to Category:Children of Holocaust survivors I strongly disagree with the nominator on this subject. The second generation of survivors of the Holocaust have been the subject of numerous published works, including several books on the subject listed by this Google books search]. The work of Art Spiegelman and his Maus books is just a small part of what is treated as a strong defining characteristic of the individuals involved and is frequently used as a means of categorization by the media and the second generation survivors themselves. Alansohn (talk) 20:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If both Danny boy and the user with all Hebrew letters are now blocked shouldn't we ignore the other !vote as well?--TM 13:54, 7 January 2011 (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:Actors in bisexual pornographic films[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. We don't categorize actors by the types of films they have appeared in or by the roles they have played. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers_by_performance for the general drift. We have always avoided categorizing performers by the specific type of performances they have done. This one is slightly more general than usual, but I don't think it's defensible solely on the ground that other stuff exists that is similar. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral It looks like, in practice, cats by specific shows, roles, or plays do not exist but performance by genre do. I'll defer to others as to whether this qualifies as a role (delete) or genre (keep). RevelationDirect (talk) 18:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your assessment is not 100% complete, because we have deleted this type of category before. For instance, People appearing in lesbian pornography was deleted; Category:Action Stars and categories of that type have repeatedly been deleted. The fact that some categories for actors by genre exist may simply mean they haven't been discussed, not that consensus is that they should exist. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By your same logic, why should this category be allowed to stay, when People appearing in lesbian pornography was deleted? That's the weakness of an argument that relies of WP:OTHERSTUFF. Why should the Western genre category exist when the one for the action film genre has been repeatedly deleted? Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: All of the examples in Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Performers_by_performance focus on very specific roles or characters, rather than broader genres. I'm neutral because I'm not sure if the adult industry sees these as fleeting roles or a defined genre. If your contention is that it doesn't matter because performance in broad genres should be exluded from cats as well, that is a reasonable position but not one that is explicitly supported by my reading of the guidelines. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not when read in isolation, but when read in combination with past discussions which have not been added to WP:OC, it becomes clearer that it probably does extend to genres, as I mentioned above. WP:OC is not a directive handed down from on high, it just reflects past discussions. In that respect it may not be comprehensive or completely up-to-date. In fact, it is far from either of those. Another way of looking at it is this: I challenge you to find one discussion where the consensus has been to "keep" a category of actors by specific genre. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. If and when you nominate Category:Shakespearean actors we can revisit that discussion. I've probably over-defended my Neutral stance on this nomination though! RevelationDirect (talk) 12:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what discussion you are referring to. As I said, there are none that have resulted in "keep". Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, but I'm getting the last word on my lack of opinion on this nomination! RevelationDirect (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try at what? Again, I don't know what you are referring to. You referred to "that discussion", so I thought you were referring to something specific from the past. And in any case, I speak only for myself and never for you, so you of course have the last word on your own opinion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez, who knew there were two? I agree that if the categories are not deleted they should be merged together.Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference is that some actors are bisexual and appear in pornography but not necessarily bisexual pornography, and others appear in bisexual pornography but aren't necessarily bisexual. I would merge but make sure all the actors identify as bisexual. AnemoneProjectors 13:53, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I'm no expert, but I personally would doubt that all actors in bisexual pornography are actually bisexual. Good Ol’factory(talk) 14:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Me thinks that this has WP:BLP issues. Also, at least for the females here, it is probably more notable as a category for those that do not engage in bisexual scenes then those who do. So, is being in a bisexual scene notable if you are heterosexual? So, is being in a bisexual scene notable if you are bisexual? So, is being in a bisexual scene notable homosexual? I'm leaning to a listify so that their bisexuality assertions can be sourced. Leaning to a delete the more I think about this. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. This had persuasive arguments both ways, but at heart the "keep" votes are summarized not by "it's needed" but instead by "it's kinda cool." And a look at the contents of Category:Named highways in the United States has over half its contents as redirects; for example, Baytown-East Freeway is a redirect to Interstate 10 in Texas. So we don't even write articles about these highways with their non-numbered names used very often. So there's no real reason to keep the categories other than "it's kinda cool," and really, if it were that cool, we'd have more articles with titles like that. I'm also taking the liberty of preemptively deleting the analogous Category:Named Highways of India, which contains one article and one similar redirect.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Almost all highways have names; it would be quite extraordinary if one did not have one. If what is meant is "highways with names that are not numbers", I suspect that this is a trivial feature of the highways and is not really worth categorizing by since it is categorizing things by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Comment I'm inclined to keep this category and its kin, but maybe with a different name. Things like Capitol Loop, which is a state highway in Michigan that only has a name, and not a number like the other 200+ highways in the state, would fit into a category very nicely. (Yes, most named highways have a hidden number for inventory purposes by the government in its logs, but they're not public knowledge nor in general use.) I don't see this falling under that guideline because the situation isn't similar enough. We're not categorizing "Highways numbered 28", but rather highways that lack a (commonly used) number. Imzadi1979→ 21:01, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Highways with a number name are still "named". Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're numbered, and in many communities, the highway has a street name in addition to its number. In Ishpeming, Michigan, US 41/M-28 (it has two numbers) is Palms Avenue. M-28 in Munising Michigan is either Munising Avenue or Cedar Street. There's a difference between a number and a name. Imzadi1979→ 14:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe to you they are different, or to the specialized lingo of the U.S. road system, but not to the normal rules of the English language they are not. If a highway is called highway 1, then it's name is highway 1, even if that is a number. Outside of the U.S. road naming system, would you really call highway 1 "unnamed"? Category:Named highways appears to be an attempt to extend a peculiar U.S. usage to all countries. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:20, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify then: my comments are not to be extended to any cases outside of the US category above. My name is not my Social Security Number, although both can be used to refer to myself in varying contexts. With US highways, the default is that they all have a number, and some are given names. When they only have a name and not a number, that's an exceptional case. Imzadi1979→ 20:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't see how having a non-number name somehow links all of these. There is no "criteria" to be given a name, so it's essentially just an arbitrary naming system and now we're arbitrarily linking them together. Anyway, I'm sure you've noticed that the container category which is nominated is Category:Named highways. What would we do with that, since it is presumably designed to contain non-U.S. "highways"? Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:37, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care about the non-US category, as I said above. Imzadi1979→ 02:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but your "vote" appears that you do, since you have stated an undifferentiated "keep". Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stated above in a clarification: "Let me clarify then: my comments are not to be extended to any cases outside of the US category above." For the third time, I don't care about the non-US category, period. Is that clear enough?Imzadi1979→ 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno—it may or may not be with a closer, depending on the effort they put in. Certainly, to someone coming along and simply skimming the "votes", as I suspect users often do at, say DRV, it is probably not good enough if you want to be clear what you are voting for. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This category could possibly be useful for categorizing major roads that do not have a route number. Dough4872 01:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Highways that have a route number are still "named". Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is categorisation by name, and since most routes have some sort of name in addition whatever number they have, it's not even categorisation by an exceptional feature of the name. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the US, most highways only have the number. Individual segments might have street names, but the highway as a whole does not have a name. Now, without looking at the Wikipedia articles (where we do list them) what is the number for the New Jersey Turnpike or the Capitol Loop? (The answers are State Route 700 for the turnpike and Connector 496 or Capitol Loop I-496, but only internal DOT publications will use these numbers.) Unlike the thousands of other highways that are primarily known by a number, these don't use their number, if they have one. Imzadi1979→ 18:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected about the lack of a name for US highways, but that doesn't alter the fact that categorisation by name is consistently deprecated. (No, I didn't what the number is of those highways you mention, but whatever the number is has no relevance to this discussion). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my argument is that some category (this might be a bad name) would be useful for categorizing highways that don't use their numbers, assuming they had one. The linked guideline says: "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject," (emphasis in original). My opinion is that this is a unique characteristic that defines something about the roadways. It's not New Jersey State Route 700, which makes is no different than all of the other New Jersey state routes, it's the New Jersey Turnpike. The Capitol Loop is the only highway in Michigan without some number in common usage. That pretty much makes is unique in my book. Imzadi1979→ 22:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is that the rationale as given by the nominator is faulty. My default reaction is to keep the category, but I honestly don't care. I just want to make sure that the logic and rationale for deletion is corrected. The assumption was that "almost all highways have names" which is false. Almost all have numbers, and a number isn't exactly a name. (My name is not my Social Security Number, although both can be used to refer to me in varying contexts.) When there are thousands of highways in a country, and the overwhelming majority don't have a name, the few that do are exceptional (i.e. they are an exception) and that's a valid basis for the creation of either a category or a list. Imzadi1979→ 20:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than nit-picking on a relatively minor issue of semantics which can be argued either way, it would be more helpful (if you do care and think it should be kept) if you could demonstrate how this is defining for the highways included. Since there are no "criteria" to be given a non-numbered name, to me it appears to be essentially just an arbitrary naming system and now we're arbitrarily linking all of the highways together that have arbitrarily been selected to have a non-numbered name. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have already demonstrated that with examples already. There are exceptional highways that are only named, not numbered. (If they have a number, it is only in internal DOT usage and not posted on the signs for the road.) Two such examples are the Capitol Loop, a state highway downtown Lansing, Michigan, or the New Jersey Turnpike. In each each, the gov't agency in charge of the roadways has elected not to number the road, except where another highway is concurrent with them. Imzadi1979→ 02:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that didn't really get at what I was after. I'm looking for what links all of these, apart from just an arbitrary decision to name them with a non-number. Are there any unified criteria? I don't think there are. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Is there an alternative to this category that the articles within it should or could be placed, or are you simply trying to eliminate the category without regard? –Fredddie™ 23:52, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is an attempt to eliminate the category without regard. Trying to get a list of all the named highways is a valid search. --Rschen7754 02:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That may be so, but it doesn't mean Wikipedia is the forum to catalogue it, per WP:NOT. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep The US category could, if populated with the named highways in each state, have 100 or more entries. Hey, these names are fun. Much more interesting than state route 1, etc etc. Names are a defining characteristic of these highways; the other defining characteristics would be their routes, maybe their construction material. Whatever is done for highways. If kept, I would spend a little time populating the US one, maybe even the international one. Hmains (talk) 03:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because "hey, these names are fun"? No but really—why is having a non-number name a defining characteristic? What links these roads together other than a peculiar name format? Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To entice readers interest and curiosity with the human world, more than just a bunch of numbered roads do. Anyway, if a reader thinks they know the name of a highway they want to read about but the reader is not quite sure of the name and their Wiki string search does not help them as they are less right than they realized, then this category tree is the perfect way to help them in their quest to find the highway they seek. Thus these categories serve a prime purpose of categories: WP navigation to articles. Hmains (talk) 21:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that that answered my question. I was looking for what links these roads together other than a name format, and you said "to entice readers interest and curiousity with the human world". That seems extremely subjective. There are those who are very fascinated by numbered road systems and would be far more interested in those than those with non-number names. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really see a point to this category. I mean, how does it benefit anyone to lump the LaSalle Expressway with Ridge Road? There's no common thread between the two except for the fact that they're both roads. Delete. – TMF 04:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't seem to be a need for this. --Admrboltz (talk) 19:51, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Neutral, leaning to oppose. Yes, the convention is that the category should follow the head article, but we do sometimes make an exception when the title is ambiguous ... because even if an ambiguous title is regarded as the primary topic topic for the head article, the ambiguity causes problems in categories. "Welsh labour" could refer to a number of things, such as issues relating to employment in Wales, the wider labour movement in Wales, and we need a category which makes it clear that the category applies to the Welsh componnet of the Labour Party (UK). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your concern is confusion with the generic of "Welsh labour" (which is not unreasonable), then would not Category:Welsh Labour (party) be more appropriate that the current name, which doesn't reflect either the actual party name or the WP article name? Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename article to match category, or possibly rename both to Labour Party in Wales. I do not follow Labour politics too closely and am not certain what the correct solution is. Certainly the present article is ambiguous, as it might refer to the working people of Wales. Strictly that should be "Welsh labour", but the distinction on capitalisation is too fine a one. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2010 (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:Terrorist incidents involving chemical weapons[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.
Delete per nom.--TM 17:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; now redundant. We should have found this as we discussed the previous issue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for prefernece. If retained it should be a subcategory, not a parent category of Category:Chemical weapons attacks. However that category needs attention as its "main article" refers to its old name. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:54, 30 December 2010 (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.
