Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 12: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 16:37, 13 October 2009

< October 11	October 13 >

October 12

Category:Furry comics

Suggest merging Category:Furry comics to Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters

Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is already a case of "Parent/Sub" categories. The difference seems to be a POV issue - what is and isn't a Furry comic seems to be a debatable point. J Greb (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deaths due to horse attacks

Category:Deaths due to horse attacks - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Deaths by horse-riding accident. Prezbo (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, those are two different things. The one entry in the category under consideration was kicked in the head by a horse; he wasn't riding it. Postdlf (talk) 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that the article does not describe a horse-riding accident, but it also does not sound like an attack: a kick of a farmer's horse, that caught him in the head. If we have to judge the intent of the horse, I'd be generous and put this one under Category:Horse-related accidents. Judge not, lest ye be kicked yerself. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Horse-related accidents. Even if the description of "attack" is accurate for this one incident, there is no need for a separate category to hold just one article. --RL0919 (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, but in that case they should both be merged to a category that would encompass both—Category:Deaths due to horse-related accidents. Postdlf (talk) 21:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - anyone know of any other cases where someone was killed by a horse, not riding it, in circumstances that wouldn't be an accident? If there simply aren't any I suppose I'm okay with the cat being deleted, but wanted to at least check if there are other incidents. MatthewVanitas (talk) 03:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kenneth Pinyan. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 04:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Please. This is a silly category, and someone getting kicked is almost always their own fault, anyway. Most of the time if a horse kicks someone, it's usually an "accident," or at least, it's human error for doing something neglectful or stupid. And yes, lots and lots of horse accidents every year. Some with deaths. I think I saw some statistic that there are more serious injuries due to ground accidents than riding accidents. I can also say that both times horse accidents have landed me in the ER (one was a kick, in fact), they were with me already on the ground, not a riding injury. And yes, usually due to forgetting some basic safety precaution... you want some Darwin award nominees, just search for "horse kick" on Google. Scary how dumb people can be... sorry for the rant. Yes, delete this category, only one article in it, and not really an "attack." :-P Montanabw^(talk) 05:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NHL "Fram" teams

Category:Chicago BlackHawks Fram Team/Affiliates - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. On top of the obvious spelling error, this category structure is redundant. Minor league affiliates are already placed in the parent team's category. i.e.: the Bridgeport Sound Tigers are already in Category:New York Islanders. No need for a separate sub cat at this time. See also some discussion on this at WP:HOCKEY.

Nominating the following:

Reso lute 18:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete them all. GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ccwaters (talk) 20:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misspelled, similar category already exists. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reason to keep these. -DJSasso (talk) 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Redundant. RGTraynor 04:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pashtun Taliban leaders

Category:Pashtun Taliban leaders - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant--as far as I know there are no Taliban leaders who aren't Pashtun. Prezbo (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of Texas ships

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: These categories are for ships and naval ships, respectively, of the Republic of Texas. Proposed renaming to match the main article on the country, and to help avoid confusion with Texas (the U.S. state) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the rename per nomination. Karanacs (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidoptera by U.S. state

Suggest merging Category:Lepidoptera of Indiana to Category:Butterflies and moths of North America

Suggest merging Category:Lepidoptera of Maryland to Category:Butterflies and moths of North America

Suggest merging Category:Lepidoptera of Michigan to Category:Butterflies and moths of North America

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. Species with wide distributions should not be categorized in such narrow subnational range categories. All of the contents of both have already been merged into List of butterflies and moths of Michigan, List of butterflies and moths of Indiana, and List of butterflies of Maryland (the Maryland Lepidoptera category does not include any moth species), which is the proper way to organize this information at this specific level. Postdlf (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nominator, as I sided in previous similar nominations. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TheAudition albums

Propose renaming Category:TheAudition albums to Category:The Audition (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match corresponding article The Audition (band). -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – per nom. Occuli (talk) 11:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To resolve names that are slightly confusing in their present form. The hyphens in "Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu" help, but "Brazilian Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners" (especially) is a bit jarring and I submit less clear than what I've proposed. Another possibility is Category:Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners from the United States, etc. (See previous discussion (which I closed), which only involved the Brazilian nationality category. No one else has followed this up so I do so now.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all - Makes sense to reduce chance of confusion. VegaDark (talk) 03:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to clarify content of category. Alansohn (talk) 16:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - I prefer the proposed renaming rather than the idea of "...from the United States" categories, and I don't think it would look too out of place. For example, typical siblings of Category:American Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners are of the form "American X" where X may be "capoeira practitioners" but also "wrestlers" or "eskrimadors". X need not have a specific form to fit into this scheme. -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Car bombings in the Chechen-Russian conflict

Propose renaming Category:Car bombings in the Chechen-Russian conflict to Category:Car bombings in the Chechen wars

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Chechen wars" is usually used if we are referring collectively to the First Chechen War and the Second Chechen War, which together comprise the "Chechen–Russian conflict". Parent category is Category:Chechen wars. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change (nom). It appears that the category creator has emptied the nominated category and replaced it with Category:Car and truck bombings in the Chechen wars, which is fine with me. The nominated category can just be deleted as empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zoos in Palestine

Propose renaming Category:Zoos in Palestine to Category:Zoos in the Palestinian territories

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's usual to use "Palestinian territories" rather than "Palestine" for categories like this, unless we are either (a) referring to the pre-Israel land of Palestine, or (b) referring to Palestinian diplomatic relations, where many states treat it as a sovereign state, as in Category:Ambassadors of Palestine. Neither of these situations apply here. Renaming will match the naming format to the parent Category:Buildings and structures in the Palestinian territories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename to match parent category and be consistent with similar categories, such as Category:Schools in the Palestinian territories. --RL0919 (talk) 17:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename There is no country "Palestine". Debresser (talk) 16:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

n.b. For the same reason I have removed the category [[Category:Zoos per country|Palestine]]. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rachel Stamp singles

Propose renaming Category:Rachel Stamp singles to Category:Rachel Stamp songs

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naming conventions for songs by artist categories should put this under the suggested renaming. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename – the nom is correct. Occuli (talk) 11:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia disabled volunteers

Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by physical characteristic" category, which have unanimous precedent for deletion here (I linked to the medical condition section as that is similar, scroll down to see the physical characteristic category) as not supporting collaboration. Does not help Wikipedia to be able to find users via a category who are disabled. Additionally, "Disabled" is extremely broad and could be hundreds of different things, I don't know why anyone would ever be searching, even for a nonencyclopedic reasons, for anyone in such a category. Finally, this doesn't follow standard user category naming conventions (Correct would be Category:Wikipedians who are disabled). VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response Wikipedians by social/psychological-issues seems to have be deleted. However, notice that deaf wikipedians has been kept. I kindly ask that this be kept. Basket of Puppies 04:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, the deaf Wikipedians category is a little more complicated than that. It was originally kept, then later deleted, but the group nom which it was deleted in was overturned at DRV with the suggestion that each category be renominated. It never was, and was later deleted as an empty category (and is currently deleted). Is there any actual encyclopedia-benefiting reason you can cite to support keeping the category? Is there a reason why this information can't simply be on your userpage instead of a category, which implies there is some use to group such users? VegaDark (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess not. Go ahead and delete. Basket of Puppies 04:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep as a valid and potentially constructive form of self-organisation among Wikipedians. Debresser (talk) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken

Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename - Doesn't support collaboration. If this category was intended for people who actually wanted to come together to improve the CFD process, there are plenty of better name options for such a category. "Wikipedians who say" should never be the starting name for a category. It does not help to group users by anything they may say. If kept, this at least needs a more encyclopedic-benefiting name, such as Category:Wikipedians who would like to improve the CfD process. If this category is kept as is, the members of the category may be proven correct in their assessment. Let's at minimum rename this to help prove the members of this category wrong. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom or rename to something more positive and constructive if its continued existence is desired and alleged to be more than an extended joke. (The nom's suggestion for wording is good in a general sense, but more specific wordings could be suggested by those who actually profess this point of view if they have a preference.) In related news, I encourage interested parties to add their user pages to Category:Wikipedians who do not feel compelled to actually create user categories in order to facilitate promotion of a point of view about Wikipedia processes and procedures but will be satisfied with having the category red-linked on their userpage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Ol’factory, I don’t see it an unpositive, but a simple fact. If there is something wrong at CfD, it need not be seen as a criticism of the people there. There are convincing suggestions that do not blame the participants. I do desire its continued existence, because it has been alleged that very few people hold this opinion, despite much the same complaint being voiced by many people, at CfD and DRV, for years. A category is an excellent way to hold the names of people who continue to hold a position, given the implicit argument that past complainers were satisfactorily answered, and given that this is a longstanding problem that is very unlikely to be fixed soon. I can see that there is a kind of ironic humour here, but that is not the prime purpose, nor is it a reason to delete.
I am open to suggestions of a rename, but ideas don’t come easily. Category:Wikipedians interested in the notion that there is something wrong at CfD I suppose is more neutral. However, I don’t see why it matters, it’s not as if this category is prominent to the readership. (Actually, I suspect that few non-wikipedian readers ever even notice, or use, categories). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I meant "positive" as in "being for something" as opposed to casting it as just being critical of something. "Wikipedians who would like to improve the CfD process" is a positive statement. "Wikipedians who say CfD is broken" is just critical. "Wikipedians interested in the notion that there is something wrong at CfD" is critical. "Wikipedians interested in expanding participation at CfD" (or whatever your goals are) is positive. If you haven't figured out exactly what it is about CfD that you would like to change, or if in fact CfD is even the problem, then a category that can help collaborators work together in a positive way is probably premature. (On the outside chance that a user just needs to be negative and have a snarkily-named category on their userpage as a statement or a protest, then redlinked ones are usually permissible on user pages. There's no need to actually create them as category space. E.g., Category:Rouge admins continues to have a decent-sized membership.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand, but finding a new name (ie a specific goal) that is positive is where we are at. Deleting because you can't think a of a way to positively rephrase reasonable criticism amounts to censorship. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think it does—not any more than deleting any other thing on WP amounts to censorship. It puts things in their proper sequential order. Calling it "reasonable criticism" begs the question—what would you change? If you know what you would change, then you can surely phrase it positively and have a corresponding user category. If you don't know what you would change, it is not reasonable criticism—it's just a catch-phrase political statement that has the effect of causing divisions with other users rather than building something positive. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD The active collaboration has already started at the talk page. That the usual cast of admins have come out to oppose an effort to deal with a real and disruptive set of problems only shows the rather genuine need for the category. While CfD is indeed an "extended joke" the effort here is a genuine means of collaboration to solve very real problems. Sadly, any effort to deal with the rampant dysfunction at CfD is typically met by efforts to deny and squelch any criticism or effort to make CfD more useful and representative of all Wikipedians. If there was truly a serious interest on the nominator's part to craft a name that would be more satisfactory, going to CfD could not have been a more disruptive option. Let the games continue! Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Aren't Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, or even Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) more appropriate forums for discussing changes to the category system? If your goal is to make it more "representative" and increase input, the talk page of a user category seems an odd platform. Postdlf (talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed, I wasn't even aware of the discussions taking place on the talk page there. It's not where I would expect conversation intended to improve CfD. So I at least am a real-life example of this change of venue being exclusive rather than broadly inclusive. Your average user who wants to improve CfD won't know that that talk page is where the action is. It's often stated that a flaw of CfD is its limited participation. I have no problem with the category existing under some sort of constructive name, but we shouldn't have any illusions about the talk page being reflective of anything more than a narrow discussion of an even more limited number of individuals. If Alansohn wants to keep the category he really should suggest a new name to see if there would be consensus for that rather than an outright delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have reoffered a set of several recommendations and I sadly understand that you are bothered by the collaborative efforts to deal with the problems here. I am bothered by this blatant disruption solely for disruption's sake in trying to do everything possible to refuse to deal with CfD's dysfunctionality. If there is a name that you will deign to tolerate to deal with the problems at CfD, then offer it. I didn't create this category, I didn't create the problems and I ain't playing your WP:POINTy game. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - ??? How can everything you assume about me and say about my motivations and feelings be so consistently wrong? It's almost like you're baiting ... ??? (But if you re-read my initial comment I think you'll find the answer you're looking for re: what I think could be an acceptable name if there is consensus to keep it.) The point is that having the discussion on the talk page of the category essentially "hides" it from wider viewership. Rather than "refus[ing] to deal with" problems you perceive, my own inaction in response to your concerns was a result of not even knowing about the conversation. If the discussion were in the regular place, I would have seen it and could have participated. If the intent is to hide the discussion and collaboration, then having it on the talk page of a user category is probably a good idea. It's unlikely that such a result is wanted, though. — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I think I know. Good Olfactory generally agrees with users that Alansohn means to challenge (not necessarily common issues), and Good Olfactory tends to reply, thus drawing further, non user-specific comment from Alansohn. I think it would be helpful if Alansohn didn't treat those on the other side of this divide as identical. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        What makes you think Alansohn's last comment was "non user-specific"? He blatantly addressed it to me in his edit summary. It seems pretty targeted, but I agree with you that Alansohn should not assume those who disagree with him all "think the same", if that is a problem. I can count at least 5 assumptions of bad faith and/or instances of incivility in his short comment (6 if you count the edit summary, which labels my earlier comment as a "demand"). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alansohn, you are baiting, both in your choice of language ("the usual cast of admins") and your attitude—refusing to assume good faith, accusing those with whom you disagree of "disruption," and painting a picture of some inexplicably motivated cabal out to thwart your efforts, which you characterize as the only valid and constructive stance. If you have a problem with something someone else is saying or doing, tell them civilly but clearly and directly. Objectively and concretely describe what they are doing and why it is wrong. If you cannot do this, then hold your tongue. This passive-aggressive bullshit needs to stop, because the one thing that does break Wikipedia is turning it into a personalized battleground, AS YOU ARE DOING. If you think your obliquely-aimed disparaging characterizations are avoiding bad etiquette and personal attacks, YOU ARE WRONG. When you broadly disparage even an unnamed group of Wikipedia contributors, in context it is clearly understood as attacking those with whom you have had disagreements , and essentially acts to proactively tar and feather anyone who later comes into disagreement with you in that same context. This is unacceptable and disruptive conduct, which polarizes discussions and poisons the cooperative atmosphere. It needs to stop. Postdlf (talk) 04:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The baiting started with the badgering at the category talk page and only continues here. Who was the one who started the discussion with the baiting comment of "So, where will the communication be facilitated? Or can we just CFD this now?" see here. I didn't create the category. I didn't name the category. I have started the discussion with specific recommendations (to which you are the only person to respond). Who is it who is poisoning the collaborative atmosphere? You may want to refer your threats at User:Kbdank71, who seems to have been doing the baiting here. I am not intimidated by threats even when in BOLD LETTERS. Alansohn (talk) 04:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So you're upset with what Kbdank71 said to you somewhere else, and you take it out on me here? I think maybe SmokeyJoe is correct and you do need to think about tailoring your comments more appropriately. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I find unconvincing your accusation that Kbdank71 was baiting you and somehow responsible for your own present behavior in this CFD through this post made seven days ago, especially given that it was on the talk page of a category you did not create and on which you had not yet posted a single edit, and given that the conduct of which I am criticizing you is, regrettably, not confined to this instance but instead a continuing pattern. Pointing fingers at other people when you are being called out for your own conduct is nonresponsive and nonconstructive. If you believe another contributor has behaved inappropriately, address it directly and maturely when and where it happens, as it doesn't serve as a defense against criticism of your own behavior, particularly as the implication of your comments is an admission that you are, at a minimum, just continuing the bad conduct of others. Postdlf (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a wikipolitical user category, which has long been discouraged. The talk page, if it contains useful discussion, can be moved into project space where it belongs. Chick Bowen 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are wikipolitical user categories long since discouraged? Is there a policy page? I object to it being called political. The issue concerns a process (CfD) and a feature of he project (categorisation), and a category was created to recognise members holding a strong, but apparently minority position. I think this is an excellent use of a usercategory. Anyone can enter and leave, and all that matters is the current membership, not last years membership. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This, like any serious user category, contrary to the nom’s assertion, does indeed support collaboration. It records wikipedians who remain interested, and is important because it has frequently been retorted, to many people, that people with complaints are very few.

The nominator seems to believe that categories should not be used to reflect differencing opinions related to wikipedia, but gives no clue as to why not? Why is there this restrictive control being forced on the community?

There is no good reason offered by the nom to delete. Is “delete” an ambit claim, intended to force the members into quickly suggesting a rename?

If “rename” is the serious intention, then the onus should be on the complainer to suggest the new name. One was suggested: I don’t like it, because it implicitly limits the scope of discussion. The question at hand is still lingering on “what is broken” and “how is it broken”. There is a good chance that it is not CfD itself that needs improvement.

The current name is succinct, precise, and neutral. It certainly doesn’t hurt anyone to leave it as is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Cfd with uncapitalised "d". Ceterum censeo Catharginam delendam esse. Debresser (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians committed to ascetic editing

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Apparently created after the essay Wikipedia:Ascetic editing was written , seemingly for the author to promote the essay. Per the essay, "In order to lessen these negative aspects of editing, I have decided to completely and forcefully ignore articles relating to fictional elements of works, biographies of living people, political topics, or philosophy. I shall not participate in deletion discussions, community noticeboards, noticeboard requests calling for the behavioral modification of another editor, or other trifling advocacy. It is my hope that situations will not arise where my personal involvement will be the subject of any of the above." - Unfortunately due to this nomination the author won't get their wish, since categorizing users based on this preference does not benefit the encyclopedia, and thus the category should be deleted. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been summarily deleted, so we should close this discussion. Debresser (talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User bat-smg-0

Nominator's rationale: Delete - 0-level category, which has extensive, unanimous precedent to delete as knowing who doesn't speak a language is not helpful to categorize. Further, the parent category has already been deleted via a deletion discussion (see here. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Users who are fans of The Prodigy

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Improper naming convention, as well as a "Wikipedians by band" category, which have unanimous precedent for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Users who want to delete this category. Do I express myself clearly? Debresser (talk) 16:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Welsh self-government

Propose renaming Category:Welsh self-government to Category:Welsh nationalism

Nominator's rationale: to match the name of the main article, Welsh nationalism. Prezbo (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Former and future Interstate Highway categories

Propose splitting Category:Former and future Interstate Highways into Category:Former Interstate Highways and the already existing future Interstate Highway category below

Propose renaming Category:Future U.S. Interstate Highways to Category:Future Interstate Highways

Nominator's rationale: The second category was created in December 2008, presumably as an offshoot of Category:Future roads. However, it is partially redundant to the first category, which was created over a year before. I suggest that the newer future category be retained, but renamed to Category:Future Interstate Highways to match the parent cat (Category:Interstate Highway System, which was renamed from Cat:U.S. Interstate Highway System a few years ago), and that the older former and future category be reduced in scope to just former Interstate Highways and named Category:Former Interstate Highways. Any future Interstate Highways in the first cat but not the second should be moved from the first to the second upon the completion of this CFD request. – T M F 01:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest splitting the former and future interstate highways into different categories, as mentioned above, in order to differentiate between which are former and which are future. Dough4872 (talk) 13:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, that's the essence of what I proposed above. I added some additional notes above to make my proposal clearer. – T M F 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support split and rename – per the nomination as an obvious general improvement to categorization. Sswonk (talk) 00:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 122: / Line 122: @@
 :::*OK, I understand, but finding a new name (ie a specific goal) that is positive is where we are at.  Deleting because you can't think a of a way to positively rephrase reasonable criticism amounts to censorship.  --[[User:SmokeyJoe|SmokeyJoe]] ([[User talk:SmokeyJoe|talk]]) 08:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 ::::*No, I don't think it does—not any more than deleting any other thing on WP amounts to censorship. It puts things in their proper sequential order. Calling it "reasonable criticism" begs the question—what would you change? If you know what you would change, then you can surely phrase it positively and have a corresponding user category. If you don't know what you would change, it is not reasonable criticism—it's just a catch-phrase political statement that has the effect of causing divisions with other users rather than building something positive. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 09:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
-*'''Keep''' The active collaboration has already started at the talk page. That the usual cast of admins have come out to oppose an effort to deal with a real and disruptive set of problems only shows the rather genuine need for the category. While CfD is indeed an "extended joke" the effort here is a genuine means of collaboration to solve very real problems. Sadly, any effort to deal with the rampant dysfunction at CfD is typically met by efforts to deny and squelch any criticism or effort to make CfD more useful and representative of all Wikipedians. If there was truly a serious interest on the nominator's part to craft a name that would be more satisfactory, going to CfD could not have been a more disruptive option. Let the games continue! [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Keep and rename to {{cat|Wikipedians working to improve CfD}}''' The active collaboration has already started at the talk page. That the usual cast of admins have come out to oppose an effort to deal with a real and disruptive set of problems only shows the rather genuine need for the category. While CfD is indeed an "extended joke" the effort here is a genuine means of collaboration to solve very real problems. Sadly, any effort to deal with the rampant dysfunction at CfD is typically met by efforts to deny and squelch any criticism or effort to make CfD more useful and representative of all Wikipedians. If there was truly a serious interest on the nominator's part to craft a name that would be more satisfactory, going to CfD could not have been a more disruptive option. Let the games continue! [[User:Alansohn|Alansohn]] ([[User talk:Alansohn|talk]]) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 **Aren't [[Wikipedia talk:Categorization]], [[Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion]], [[Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy]], or even [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)]] more appropriate forums for discussing changes to the category system?  If your goal is to make it more "representative" and increase input, the talk page of a user category seems an odd platform.  [[User:Postdlf|Postdlf]] ([[User talk:Postdlf|talk]]) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 ***Indeed, I wasn't even aware of the discussions taking place on the talk page there. It's not where I would expect conversation intended to improve CfD. So I at least am a real-life example of this change of venue being exclusive rather than broadly inclusive. Your average user who wants to improve CfD won't know that that talk page is where the action is. It's often stated that a flaw of CfD is its limited participation. I have no problem with the category existing under some sort of constructive name, but we shouldn't have any illusions about the talk page being reflective of anything more than a narrow discussion of an even more limited number of individuals. If Alansohn wants to keep the category he really should suggest a new name to see if there would be consensus for that rather than an outright delete. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 22:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)