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. MER-C 13:39, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains itself, a template and one other article. The template has been nominated for deletion, where the consensus emerging is to delete. If it is deleted that will leave just the title article and one other. If it is not deleted there will still only be the title article, template and one other article. It is not clear why this category should exist. --Greykit (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly exists because of the common misconception that every television show automatically gets one of these. That's not the rule, however — per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, a television show only gets its own dedicated category if there's a large volume of related spinoff content for it to contain. But that's not present here. Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2015 (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:speedy rename. – FayenaticLondon 17:31, 6 May 2015 (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:rename. MER-C 13:41, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There have been protests dating back 10 years on the talk page of the main article that it is misnamed -- yet it remains Shin Bet to this day. Apparently Shabak is the common Hebrew term -- while it seems to me that Shin Bet is the more widely used English-language term, based on Google results -- though one needs to distinguish between this and plentiful results for the entirely unrelated Shabak people, who have their own category here as well, Category:Shabak people. I propose to rename the category to match the main article, per WP:RECOGNIZABLE, as this is an English-language encyclopedia -- and to match the current subcategory Category: Shin Bet in fiction, which I see was created last month. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Category name should match article title. FYI Shawn, this could have been done via a speedy (WP:C2D) rather than a full CfD. Number57 11:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given how bitterly contested the name issue was on the main article's talk page, I didn't think it would pass as an uncontroversial move. I do see a 2010 article move request was unanimously opposed, but I figured one objection at CFDS was enough to send it back here anyway, so... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per the spirit of WP:C2D. No opinion on what Shin Bet should be called, but the category should automatically follow. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 3 May 2015 (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:CRÉ (Regional conference of representatives)[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:relisting on current date due to complete lack of participation here. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a badly-named category created by someone who technically has a conflict of interest (User:Conférence régionale, which if you don't know French means exactly what it looks like), but that's not really the substance of why this should be deleted. The real substance of the problem is that a regional conference of elected officers is simply the type of government that administers the administrative regions of Quebec. What this category contains, however, is not standalone articles about the CRÉs as separate topics in their own right, but the main articles on administrative regions themselves — all of which are already catted in Category:Administrative regions of Quebec or an eponymous subcategory of that. By comparison, we don't add every city's or town's primary article to a "city councils" category just because it has a council; we use those categories to contain the much narrower array of cases where the city council has its own standalone article as a separate topic from the city or town itself. So for those reasons, this is just serving as an unhelpful duplication of another category that already exists, on a tangential detail that isn't a defining characteristic of its actual contents. If some or all of the CRÉs had standalone articles about the CRÉs themselves, then a renamed version of this would certainly be appropriate — but we don't need it if it's just sitting directly on the main articles about the regions instead. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 2 May 2015 (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:keep. MER-C 13:42, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I propose merging the English, Scottish and Welsh republicans categories into British republicans. People are calling for the abolition of the Monarchy of the United Kingdom, not the English, Welsh or Scottish monarchies. Those people are citizens of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It makes much greater sense to combine the categories, rather than having four separate categories, particularly for people who identify as British AusLondonder (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined to disagree with the nominator — the point of the categories isn't the nationality of the monarchy that the person is lobbying to abolish, but the nationality of the person who's doing the lobbying. And that distinction is a relevant characteristic of interest to readers and researchers — I can easily see a lot of reasons why a person might be interested in researching specifically Scottish or Welsh or English people who were republican activists, rather than being limited to a single all-of-Britain grouping with no way to narrow their focus. For example, a Scottish republican isn't necessarily fighting for the UK to remain united under a republican government instead of a monarch — he or she may very well want Scotland to leave the UK and establish its own independent republic, while not actually giving a rat's hiney whether England keeps the queen or not. But the same might not necessarily be true of an English republican, who might instead want the whole UK to form a single new republic. And a republican in Northern Ireland doesn't want to stay in a united republican UK or have Northern Ireland establish its own new republic, but just wants Northern Ireland to become part of the existing Republic of Ireland. So there's an important contextual distinction we need to maintain, because they're not all necessarily fighting for the same thing. Keep all. Bearcat (talk) 17:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per Bearcat. The context in which people may argue for a Republic differs radically between the UK's various constituent countries, so the constituent country is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of their republicanism. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all -- What republican state they are campaigning for does not matter much. I am glad to see that Irish Republicans are not included in the nom, as they are likely to be nationalists. I suspect that some of the people are essentially anti-monarchists. However, purge -- In going through sample articles, I found several that faield to mention anything about a republic except in a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think a specific problem lies with identity. Many people identify as British, not English for example. I think the English category should go. A majority of voters in England identify as British first, whilst voters from the other countries say Welsh or Scottish and British. AusLondonder (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - I agree with the above. Neutralitytalk 16:07, 6 May 2015 (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:upmerge. For the record, this version of E50 gives an illustration of why the current categories result in WP:OCAT. – FayenaticLondon 20:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT. There is no conceptual problem with categorizing roads by province/state/oblast but Ukraine doesn't have even a single article about an oblast-level road. Instead, these categories group federal and international roads by every oblast they go through as they crisscross the country. Three urban oblasts with short federal roads are workable but the rest of the tree just creates category clutter at the bottom of the article. Click on European route E105 or Highway M06 (Ukraine) to see what this looks like in action. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:10, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's proven remarkably difficult to enforce, the consensus indeed has been that roads should not be categorized by every individual subdivision that they happen to pass through — a national-level road should not be subcatted by every individual province or state or oblast, a provincial or state level road should not be subcatted by every individual city or county, and on and so forth. Only roads that are maintained by any given level of division should be subcatted at that level of division — subcategorization by every individual subdivision, below the maintaining division, which the road happens to pass through creates moderate to extreme category bloat which does not aid navigation. Merge all per nom. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose, your argument is weak. Those roads cross regions of Ukraine and the categories provide more detailed information as for the E-network roads (Europe-wide), M- and H-network roads (Nation-wide). If you check articles on regions such as oblast or Crimea, you might be able to find subsections about the information that you mentioned, so technically it defeats your argument. There is no federal level as you claim. Ukraine is an unitary state. Ukravtodor that manages roads has regional branches in every oblast and in Crimea (temporarily occupied). Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:16, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Er, if Ukraine is a unitary state then a federal level is exactly the only thing that it does have. A non-federal level is what a unitary state fails to have. Bearcat (talk) 23:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the proposition will go through it is set to fail. As in the near future someone else will revive those categories. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Article DeletionBearcat, did you notice that there is an article set to be deleted? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's trying to get rid of the articles. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It says upmerging M20 to Category:Roads in Kharkiv Oblast. What is upmerging? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those categories will be populated more. Would you give me some time? And hold off your merging and upmerging? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My concern here isn't that the categories are underpopulated, it's that individual articles are being placed in too many categories. (Obviously you disagree, but adding more articles won't alleviate my concern.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerging means that the articles remain as articles, but simply get moved from one category to another. It does not mean that any content disappears. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have articles like this European route E93, but Revelation is itching to get rid of articles and categories about Ukraine. What is that all about? Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 23:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, information on all the routes with in a region is located in each individual article about the region. Ukraine also is the biggest country in Europe after the trancontinental Russian Federation and some of its regions bigger than some states in Europe. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 00:13, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming Good Faith"Revelation is itching to get rid of articles and categories about Ukraine." --@Aleksandr Grigoryev:
Support. Articles should be categorized at the right level, so if a road passes through multiple oblasts, it should be categorized at national level instead of oblast level. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have the impression that some opposition is caused by the assumption that articles are nominated to be deleted as well. That is clearly a wrong assumption. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bearcat, thanks on clarification about upmerging. RevelationDirect, first of all I apologize if what I said came out as an accusation. I was unaware of some terms. About political crisis, it is not true. You did not start with German articles and categories, but you did with Ukrainian. There are some articles and categories related to Germany that have similar issues, but you did not include them in your list. Are we going come up with some system or we will be deleting stuff randomly? I agree that E-network series could be cleaned up of subdivision categories or redone with category that would provide some sort of connection. For the roads of certain country, I do not see anything wrong or "cluttered" with subdivision categories. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Re the comment above the categories provide more detailed information - categories are not for providing (real world) information; that's what articles (e.g. List of roads in Foo Oblast) are for. Categories are for finding articles by their defining topic(s). DexDor(talk) 05:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: FreightXPress has been blocked indefinitely. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2015 (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.
