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 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: Propose changing names combining English and French terms to all English (monument historique = historic monument). This would bring the name in line with its grandparent Category:Official historical monuments of France. The category's description can make it clear that the French designation monument historique is analogous to UK scheduled building, US national historic landmark, etc. Erictalk13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that link. I previously had no recollection about closing that discussion, but it's coming back to me now. Just to be clear about my comment, I am basically neutral on the proposal to change the French to English. I could support either approach, as long as it is applied uniformly across the category tree. I do think that it doesn't make a lot of sense to use a generic name on the head category but then to use the formal designation for the subcategories. That could be fixed by renaming the subcategories to use English, or by renaming the head category to use the official designation. Good Ol’factory(talk)03:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Good Ol', thanks to Marco for the link to last June's discussion. I find the mixture of French and English to be awkward and unnecessary, especially given that historic monument is the exact translation of monument historique, linguistically speaking. Comparison to equivalent official designations used in the various anglophone countries can be provided in the cat's description. Erictalk15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it is an official designation. Each article needs to be provided with a head note identifying its scope as linked to the designation, to discourage the addition of undesignated items. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think that monument historique being an official designation means that the English Wikipedia category name should be partially in French. I'm sure we have plenty of categories for other non-anglophone countries where we have translated the official term to English, for example: Category:Historic_monuments_in_Romania (monumente istorice), Category:Monuments and memorials in Italy (Monumenti nazionali). Erictalk20:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would not oppose us keeping it as "Historical Monuments" (so capitalised) with a headnote limiting it to those officially designated. French is a widely spoken language (unlike Romanian), but this is the English WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nomination; this is the English Wikipedia, not the French Wikipedia, so we can use the English translation of the French term. We have an article at Germany not Deutschland, etc etc. ~ RobTalk13:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per SmokeyJoe; this is a specific class of entities with a specific designation in French, and our use of the French-language title is just as reasonable as the German use of an English-language title in categories such as de:Kategorie:Denkmal im National Register of Historic Places (Ohio). Moreover, your argument for mere translation would call these things merely "historic monuments", a generic term a la historic site; your argument is inconsistent and would produce a system that can't at all be kept consistent, because there are lots of historic sites in France that don't have Monument historique status. You also suggest inventing a new term, "official historic monument" — official according to whom? Yes, France is a unitary state, but that doesn't prevent communes from putting up signs celebrating such-and-such a place as an official historic monument. And finally, I don't say "keep" because these aren't monuments historiques of any department: these are national monuments, not departmental monuments, so they should be "Monuments historiques in X Department", not of. Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (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 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 websites naming the category "XYZ people" is more inclusive and accurate in the long term. This category already includes at least one former employee and in the parent category, there are other biographies of reddit people who are not employees. Those biographies need a category, and it should be "reddit people". Blue Rasberry (talk)15:37, 6 May 2016 (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.
Delete - in addition to the nominating rationale, there's no clear definition of 'tweenage', making it hard to find articles it applies to. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2016 (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.
A Hero City is a Soviet-era award issued to whole cities for resisting the Nazi invasion from 1941-1944. This isn't a battlefield category, it's was given to major cities like Saint Petersburg, as Leningrad, and Volgograd, as Stalingrad. (There is one non-city article in the category, but it is miscategorized based on a similar award.) Kiev is a city of 3 million people that was founded in 482; this category defines that article by a 1965 award forthe events of 1941 which doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already lisitifed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per WP:NONDEFINING, [a] defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.... This is certainly the case here, and I see nothing in the nomination that demonstrates otherwise; if anything, the nominator himself seems to be hesitating about the applicability. NONDEFINING simply does not apply, and neither does OCAWARD, which is dependent on it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2016; 12:36 (UTC)
Delete, not every characteristic is a defining characteristic and it is certainly not in this case. One really needs to search for the fact that a city has once been a Hero City, it's not one of the primary things mentioned. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When I use the the WP:OCAWARD reason for a nomination, I always put the WP:NONDEFINING reason after it in parentheses. It's not that I'm unsure of it's applicability, I just don't think the award rational provides any analysis beyond "nondefining, but with awards". (Based on your comments, I think we agree on this point.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a national award and probably not a common one. We dislike AWARD categories because they create category clutter, but there is an exception for major awards; I guess this is one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NON-DEFINING - look at, for example, Kiev where there's no mention at all of this award in the text (and only a small fraction of the article text is about WWII) - WP:DNWAUC applies. This (as with most/all awards) is much better presented as a list than as a category. DexDor(talk)21:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
re: Kiev: - well-known hatred in modern Ukraine to all thing Soviet; obviously reflected by editors of the article. - üser:Altenmann >t06:22, 10 May 2016 (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:Television series by Warner Bros. Television
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: It can't be called under the Warner Bros. Television name anymore, shows from other Time Warner divisions are in the category since their owned by Time Warner.47.54.189.22 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I know that, but the rename from WBTV to Time Warner, will make the category the home of all Time Warner shows, HBO shows like Game of Thomes can be coming to the category, the only HBO shows listed are ones like Everybody Loves Raymond, Turner shows from channels like CNN and TBS will also be in the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So, you know your rationale for a category merge is wrong, but you want it to happen anyway, just so everything produced by a company connected to Time Warner is in one category? Trivialist (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Im merged all spin off categorys into the WBTV category, and also merging the New World TV category into the 20th Century Fox Television category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2016 (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 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.
That may be an alternative too. My understanding of (Christian) theology, then phrased in terms of these categories, is that it's the scholarly study of (Christianity), for example about belief and doctrine, so that's why I suggested to merge to "studies" wherever I could, because all the content is about scholarly studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is no truth to the claim that "theology" is not applicable to Islam. Oxford University Press has just published The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology, and the table of contents matches closely with the topics listed under Category:Islamic theology. Islamic Studies is an umbrella term for various Islamic fields and there is still a need for a separate category for Islamic theological thought. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's true that the term "Islamic theology" doesn't have a long history as "Christian theology" does, and the whole concept of "Islamic theology" might not be the preferred approach to studying Islam in the Muslim world. However, in quite some Western countries, Islamic theology has been lately established as an academic discipline. If this proposal was about renaming categories to something better, I'd be open for alternative suggestions, but a simple merge IMHO doesn't really help us. A genuine main article on Islamic theology however remains desirable. --PanchoS (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2016 (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: Same issue as below: being on a road isn't defining. Taking this to every notable road would create an unmanageable category overload. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We have deleted many such categories in the past. My view is that being on a route is in the nature of a performance category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we have lots of similar categories of places, such as on various rivers, bodies of water, border crossings (which seems to be a "current" category since former border crossings tend not to be included). Start the pruning here, I guess. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (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: Lots of roads are famous, still signed or not. There seems to be nothing defining about this. US routes generally already have a list of communities they pass through, and these are already categorized as ghost towns by state, so there's no need for listification or upmerge. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the nominator's rationale is sound, but US 66 is a special case among all roads in the US. These ghost towns are intrinsically linked to the road in ways that is not true of other highways. They're ghost towns because US 66 went away. Any other road in the US I would absolutely !vote delete, but I can't for US 66. –Fredddie™11:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, US 40 is by far the more historic road, if not having the benefit of Hollywood romanticism, and there are surely many towns along it that no longer exist. But second, I'm not seeing this connection to the bypassing by I-40 in most of the articles, and those that do source it mostly to fansites. Third, there's also the problem that a lot of these aren't ghost towns; they have ceased to exist entirely. Finally, maybe it makes sense to categorize ghost towns by the reason they became so, but surely there are other towns on other roads which evaporated because of being bypassed. The point is that this doesn't add up to this category. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, much to my surprise. Clicking through the articles, most of them attribute their depopulation to the end of Rte 66. There are some exceptions though: Anaconda, New Mexico abandonment was due to the closure of the Anaconda copper mine so I'd be open to some rename that limited the contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The argument "US 40 is by far the more historic road..." (if not for what popular culture has to say on the matter) isn't really the point. The difference seems to be that the 40 wasn't abandoned, it just evolved into the I-80 in the west, and remains a heavily travelled route in many places, just under different names, no? The 66's importance to the ghost town issue is unique. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
US 66 wasn't abandoned either. Like US 40, it was bypassed in favor of interstates; US 66 dropped as a route number, but the road(s) didn't disappear. And surely small towns along the bypassed segments of US 40 and the many other US routes supplanted by limited access highways also faded away. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category cruft. We already have categories to sort ghost towns by state. Categories of places along a road is nondefining. Also we can't be sure all these ghost towns came about because of the demise of US 66 as there could have been other factors too. Dough487220:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the strongest defining characteristics of these ghost towns is their shared location on Route 66, and this category allows readers to navigate across these articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify – While there's clearly a strong relationship here, it's not enough to satisfy the requirements for a category. Changing to a navbox or list would keep this relationship visible to the reader while maintaining a hard line against overcategorization. Ibadibam (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify to the extent sourced; one could put together categories like this for nearly any disused road system, rail system, formerly navigable river, canal, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2016 (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.
