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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - needs to be deleted -- the overwhelming majority of Irish subjects are R.C. and there are too many sub and sub-sub categories for this category. Ireland is not a country (unlike say Finland or Iceland) where this religious denomination is any cause at all for particular interest. If carried to its logical extreme the overwhelming majority of people from Ireland will have to be included on this category as well.

There are about 10 or 11 names that will need to be manually re- categorized.

Ciociabasia 22:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, unmanagable category. Invitatious (talk)
• Speedy keep. Nom wrote, Ireland is not a country (unlike say Finland or Iceland) where this religious denomination is any cause at all for particular interest. What are you smoking? Few countries in the world care more about religious affiliation than the Irish.--M@rēino 14:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep Historically many influential Irish people were not Catholic (okay maybe they were seen as traitors who barely deserved to be considered Irish by the majority, but that isn't the point). Cloachland 15:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note to respond --not voting again -- you misunderstand me; when I stated that "...where this religious denomination is any cause at all for particular interest" I meant that it is because the overwhelming majority of its natives have always been R.C. Would you make a list of British Anglicans? Israeli Jews? Austrian Catholics? Italian Roman Catholics? It is absurd and unnecessary, since the already existing categories or the text will clearly establish the person's denomination in most if not almost all cases.

If this category remains then every person who qualifies will need to be added. Moreover every country on the face of the earth should get its own category on this basis (French Catholics, Lebanese Catholics (Greek or Roman??), Indian Catholics, Somalian Catholics; South African Catholics, Polish Catholics; Russian Catholics, etc). "Unmanageable" will be an understatement. Ciociabasia 20:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Fair enough. Sorry for the confusion.--M@rēino 19:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is the non-Roman Catholics of Ireland that are notable for their religious affiliations, or non-affiliations, not the otherway round. Carlossuarez46 21:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Dividing the people by religion categories by nationality is sensible because the two traits actually have a significant relationship—how religions are practiced and recognized does vary from country to country. These are preferable over inanities like the religion by occupation categories (e.g., Roman Catholic sportspeople) that have no meaning other than coincidence. Postdlf 23:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems like a pretty bizarre and dumb category. Like the person above said - what's next - Danish Lutherans or Orthodox Russians or Indian Hindus?? Rosemary's Baby 04:49, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Ian Paisley describes himself as Irish. He just doesn't quite see it at his national idendity, to put it mildy... :-) so I can certainly see the logic in keeping this category but it's really categories like "Danish Lutherans" and "Italian Catholics" that worry me more. Religion categories are most problematic I have seen abused on Wikipedia - one biography I found had four completely different religions assigned, without any discussion on his beliefs in the article and certainly no citations! Personally I'd be in favour of canning the religious categories except for people categorized for the position they hold within a religious hierarchy or organization. The gap between "humanist", "agnostic", "atheist", "Quaker", "unitarian", "Liberal Jew" etc is narrow to say the least and not everybody makes an unambiguous public declaration. Then there are people who switch religion, people whose religion is the subject of rumor... so I'd actually suggest to drop them all (Catholics by profession, Catholics by nationality, Catholics by whatever, and so on) with the possible exception of Jews for whom it's not just a matter of subjective religious belief that leaves us unable to delve into. TheGrappler 12:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination, but I would like to comment on the comments of User:TheGrappler above. To state The gap between "humanist", "agnostic", "atheist", "Quaker", "unitarian", "Liberal Jew" etc is narrow to say the least seems pretty obnoxious to me. And what does it's not just a matter of subjective religious belief that leaves us unable to delve into mean?? Also there are no pages called "Danish Lutherans" or "Italian Catholics", that was just a sarcastic reference by another editor. I think people should exercise more care when voting. As someone of Irish descent it is obvious to me that the minority faith is the one worthy of mention, as the other is understood almost automatically, just as is being a member of a minority faith in any country whose population overwhelmingly belongs to one sect. Mercifully I am free of any religion belief but too many people are not. MaggieMae 14:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep against nom Antares33712 23:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep BrenDJ 23:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per User:Mareino OSU80 04:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have a system that categorises Roman Catholics so it should cover all countries. Twittenham 12:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment so the "Italian Catholics" is coming? and the "Vatican Catholics"? so the theoretical problem page is not so theoretical. Carlossuarez46 22:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP is not paper. I have seen any evidence of harm here. Though harm may be cause by the deletion. Besides, this category will not include just anyone who happens to be Irish and Catholic. That would be extreme. Such inclusions still have to meet the requirement of notability, which is a fair standard. For a researches looking for notable figures, this category may well be indispensible. Vaquero100 12:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of the subcategories are statehoods: Washington DC, Guam, Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico. User:Arual 21:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. If we approve of this change, are we saying that all 'by state' categories should also be changed since they usually include territories? Vegaswikian 01:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Washington D.C. isn't a territory and I wouldn't want an even longer name than the one proposed for this category or any of its siblings. Chicheley 09:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Chicheley, and to avoid Vegaswikian's concern. The solution to the inclusion of DC and the territories in the state categories is to instead create a supercategory (perhaps Category:American people by political subdivision) that can then house Category:American people by state and by all other divisions. Postdlf 23:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose The proposed title is a bit unwieldly. Technically, yes, it isn't perfectly accurate. However, American think in terms of states, unless they live in territories. "Political subdivision" is accurate but unrecognizable to common use. Americans in territories, though it is not technically correct are accostomed to this nomenclature as well. Vaquero100 13:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current category title is ambiguous. Guantanamo itself is a disambiguation article on Wikipedia. The proposed new name would clarify things, but an entirely different, better wording might also exist. Kurieeto 21:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Antares33712 01:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Choalbaton 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Ramseystreet 12:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was misplaced request, use the move button, the talk page, or WP:RM if there's a disagreement. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• trying to consolidate disparate pages and categories. South Philly 21:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Huh? This isn't a category; are you proposing that the page be renamed? That doesn't have to go through *FD (and certainly not through CFD in particular!) Kirill Lokshin 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take it to Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians to discuss a move. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 23:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, categories cannot just be moved like articles can, renames/moves do need to go through CFD. --JeffW 05:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I disagree; the WP:MW page is more informative than simply listing a user's user name. --Idont Havaname (Talk) 00:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Missing Wikipedians. This does not belong here, because it is not a category. Grandmasterka 03:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ADMIN: PLEASE MOVE TO MISC. FOR DELETION--M@rēino 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom 216.141.226.190 06:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Inactive Wikipedians". --Chris Griswold 08:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I had created the new Category:Louisiana-Monroe Warhawks football before recalling to use this page. This is related to the other CAT (footbal players) proposal 2 below for renaming. Thanks. Aaron charles 19:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the merger is already complete. ×Meegs 09:33, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

x-related is the form used by the grand-parent category Category:Lists by country as well as the only other lists by state category Category:Hawaii-related lists. JeffW 19:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -Dawson 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename thats cool Joe I 19:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Cloachland 15:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The mascot of the University of Louisiana at Monroe changed on June 26, 2006 and the category should be changed for consistency. Aaron charles 19:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It's true. [1] Rename. ×Meegs 09:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 04:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles listed in the category relate to the Roman Catholic Church specifically rather than churches of the Catholic tradition generally, and should be changed to remove ambiguity. Fishhead64 19:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Chicheley 19:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This category currently contains 5 articles, and they do not relate only to the RCC - wimpae are historical, certainly others wear religious habits, veils, probably cowls, and it would not surprise me if some (high church) Anglicans even wore scapulars. If anything this should be renamed to Category:Monastic clothing and kept as a subcategory of Category:Asceticism Gimmetrow 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -SynKobiety 02:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per Gimmetrow (even if he didn't actually vote for it, it's the best solution on offer) TheGrappler 12:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Monastic clothing per Gimmetrow. —Mira 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that another discussion is taking place simultaneously at the category talk page. —Mira 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -Cheyinka 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of topics related to religious life that dont have to do with clothing. Use your imagination: Vows, related Church documents, theology of consecration, the various families of religious. And of course there is the age old (450 years) attempt by Anglicans to change the official name of the Catholic Church, which is a complete violation of WP conventions and policies.
  • Comment it was a dirty trick, Fishhead, to have votes going on simultaneously at two different locations, here and here on the same issue. Interesting that you diverted voters from the WPProject Catholicism page to the false voting page and voted there yourself to make it look legitimate. What is the is the WP discipline for election fraud? I wonder if this vote can even be considered valid.Vaquero100 04:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember to assume good faith, Vaquero100. —Mira 17:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep' EBentley 23:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The articles listed in the category relate to the Roman Catholic Church specifically rather than churches of the Catholic tradition generally, and should be changed to remove ambiguity. Fishhead64 19:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Chicheley 19:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Rename. This category existed for over a year without a conflict, then 2 weeks ago a sentence was added saying it involved the RCC. This is a content dispute, not a CfD question. Gimmetrow 21:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Having perused the content, I believe the omission of any significant Eastern content suggests this category is intended to be particular to the Roman church. Gimmetrow 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -SynKobiety 02:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Guess what this is a subcategory of: Category:Roman Catholic Church. Who'dathunk? —Mira 18:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Note that another discussion is taking place simultaneously at the category talk page. —Mira 18:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a subcategory of an "RCC" named category because there is a well organized campaign to violate WP conventions with regard to exactly one institution which is currently not very popular in modern society. WP recognizes institutions by the names they have for themselves without regard to and POV those names might express. This is accorded to all institutions on WP except the Catholic Church which has used the same name for about 1,900 years! Who the hell are these editors who think it is their perogative to change the name of an institution older than any other? And of course there is the age old (450 years) attempt by Anglicans to change the official name of the Catholic Church..
  • Comment That is not just a "discussion" as you put it, Mira, that is a VOTE!! It was a dirty trick, Fishhead, to have votes going on simultaneously at two different locations, here and here on the same issue. Interesting that you diverted voters from the WPProject Catholicism page to the false voting page and voted there yourself to make it look legitimate. You had to have known what you were doing because you voted twice on the same issues!!!! What is the WP discipline for election fraud? I wonder if this vote can even be considered valid. Fishhead, I suggest you explain yourself on the Project Catholicism page--better yet, I will. Vaquero100 04:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remember to assume good faith, Vaquero100. —Mira 17:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep EBentley 23:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --WikiCats 07:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 07:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More obvious title. Tim! 18:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Chicheley 19:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Anirvan 21:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename - These are categories and articles that list villains or groups if villains listed by the specific protagonist they are known for opposing; "Fictional villains" is too vague to sum that up. I am open, however, to a more appropriate, properly descriptive name change. --Chris Griswold 22:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Fictional villains by protagonist then. BTW most of the articles in the category don't seem to belong as they are just about supporting characters, not just villains. --JeffW 05:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't we already have Category:Supervillains by adversary ? --GCarty 09:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge to Category:Supervillains by adversary. Good catch. --JeffW 14:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. These are collections of hero-specific villains, and in the comic parlance, that's a rogues gallery. Whether the title changes, it should not be merged into the villains category.--Mike Selinker 05:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. A blander title is better. Choalbaton 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and because "rogues gallery" is really a term only used by DC Comics, not the other publishing houses -Markeer 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not. See Rogues gallery for more detail.--Mike Selinker 22:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename make it more versatile -- Ipstenu (talk|contribs) 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge per nom. Twittenham 12:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was originally going to send this to speedy to lower-case the "S", but it is also necessary to specify which senate, in line with the intention of the category, as there are also senates in individual U.S. states. Chicheley 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Chicheley 20:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. There are also senates in other countries. BoojiBoy 01:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The relevant country is specified in "African American". Chicheley 15:44, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "African American" is occasionally (mis)used to describe black people from other countries, and thus is not an adequate DAB. BoojiBoy 21:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • But since it is misused, that's not encyclopedic or verifiable. --William Allen Simpson 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:African American senators of the United States or, per WAS below, Category:African-Americans in the United States Senate, as otherwise I'd say there are too many adjective/als before category's subject "senators" in the current name. Regards, David Kernow 01:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC), expanded 21:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:African-Americans in the United States Senate -- match existing Category:Presidents pro tempore of the United States Senate and Category:Women in the United States Senate --William Allen Simpson 03:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match category:Female United States Senators, which is up for renaming to Female United States senators. Osomec 17:41, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Category:African-Americans in the United States Senate (first choice) or Category:African-American United States Senators (second choice--note captial "S" and hyphen). In any case Category:African American United States senators is incorrect. older ≠ wiser 14:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relisting from June 27 with a view to gaining consensus on how to rename this category Tim! 18:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Amended proposal to Category:African-American United States Senators as I now understand that Americans insist on a capital S and I missed out the hyphen before. Chicheley 19:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you want to, create a subcat called Category:African Americans who are Senators in nations other than the USA. See how quickly that one fills up.--M@rēino 14:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 20:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no agreed definition of what constitutes a microbrewery other than it is a brewery which produces an amount of beer per year ranging from less than 1,500 barrels to less than 1 million barrels [2] Usage varies from country to country - and the term is sometimes replaced with the term craft brewer. The majority of breweries in the world are small and produce less than 15,000 barrels a year, so the majority of breweries could be classed as microbreweries by size. A more reasonable approach would be to create a Global breweries category to deal with the smaller amount of breweries that do not fit the microbrewery tag, and which - because they have brewing plant in more than one country - do not fit easily on the breweries by region category. This proposal is contentious. There is a debate going on at the WikiBeerProject [3] SilkTork 18:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep—57 brewery articles were in this category, until it was unilaterally deleted by SilkTork, without any consensus or even discussion. The project straw poll shows zero support for deletion. Furthermore, SilkTork tried to sneak in the change, using misleading edit summaries, then falsely claimed consensus in a previous discussion which didn't even mention this category. Until there is any support shown for deletion, the articles in question should have the category restored. —Michael Z. 2006-07-11 19:39 Z

Thank you for repopulating the category while this discussion is ongoing. ×Meegs 10:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Rename to Category:Craft breweries. While I acknowledge that there is no clearly authoritative definition here (either for "microbrewery" or "craft brewery"), it still feel it is a useful category as evidenced by the number of articles that were in the category before purging and the support at the Beer WikiProject for keeping it. We should work to come up with reasonably objective criteria for category inclusion. Mike Dillon 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have heard not a single reasonable argument for deletion. While the definition could be tightened, the definition still exists. Furthermore, the suggestion made on the project's talk page that if a brewery is a microbrewery it's inherently NN is ludicrous. --Stlemur 22:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep against nom Antares33712 01:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep sounds like POV on SilkTork's part Drmagic 01:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's an interesting comment. The reason I am suggesting removing the cat is that it is inherently POV. As there is no agreed definition of what constitutes a microbrewery each person will have their own opinion, their own POV. Whenever someone places a microbrewery tag on an article they are making a POV judgement that another editor may disagree with. The term itself is contentious and vague. Which definition are you thinking of using when you wish to apply the microbrewery tag: this one: "In the United States, a microbrewery is a brewery producing less than 1 million hectolitres per year." [4], which is the US Government view; this one: "Microbrewery - Breweries and brewpubs producing less than 1,500 barrels per year." [5], which is by Bill Owens at American Brewer Magazine; or this one: "Microbrewery: A brewery that produces less than 15,000 barrels (17,600 hectoliters) of beer per year." [6], by the Brewers Association. And if you are thinking that the term microbrewery conveys something more than just size - as in approach to brewing or customer satisfaction, then you'd have to show in what way you feel brewery X is different to brewery Y - and if you start getting into areas of use of adjuncts or flexibility of approach, then even global brewers produce beers with no adjuncts, while small breweries use adjuncts; and some small brewers have been producing the same beer for decades, while global brewers are altering their portfolios to reflect changing customer taste. You see? I'd be happy for someone to explain to me the advantage of keeping such a category. I enjoy a debate. And I could well be wrong here. I'd appreciate someone explaining what they feel a microbrewery actually is, and why we should have a category for such breweries. SilkTork 09:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the superset of all of these definitions should be included in the category. That way, no matter what you reasonably expect a microbrewery to be, you'll be able to find it in the category listing.

Are there any problems with this approach? Are any of the definitions unreasonable, or for the sake of neutrality, we should ask are they challenged or controversial? —Michael Z. 2006-07-12 16:59 Z

I'm interested. You are suggesting we list breweries in terms of the amount of beer they produce? It's possible, but difficult. We could, of course, also list breweries in terms of the style of beer they produce. Or we could list breweries by how long they have been in existence (a particular favourite here in Europe, especially here in the UK). Or we could list breweries in terms of ownership (another favourite in Europe, especially in the UK, where family run breweries are favoured - and have their own organisation: [7]). All these things are possible. And there is a sense in which I like all of them. However, when the beer categories were sorted out and breweries were grouped as they are now by region [8], that seemed the most useful way of organising them. The volume of beer that a brewery produces has nothing to do with its quality or importance. The brewery that most beer geeks like myself deem to be the most interesting produces a very small amount of beer: Westvleteren Brewery. Though one of the world's largest breweries - Scottish & Newcastle - is responsible for one of the world's most significant beers: Courage Russian Imperial Stout. Size, as such, means nothing in terms of the brewery's quality or importance. And size as determined by a term as contentious as "microbrewery" is certainly the least exact way of measuring it. I see where you are coming from - and I'm aware and interested in the many ways that breweries can be categorised. However, it seems to me that most of the ways we could categorise breweries are either not helpful, or are too vague or are POV. And using the term "microbreweries" is unhelpful, vague and POV - it hits all three! If the microbrewery cat survives this nomination (and I hope it doesn't, but looks like it might because most people don't understand the issues and are not getting involved in the debate), I will endeavour to make it as user friendly as possible. Though I would still like you to give me what you feel is a usable definition of microbrewery so that I can see how best to make the category work for you. SilkTork 22:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass-market beer, microbrewed beer, brewpub beer are categories that may be difficult to delineate precisely, but most beer drinkers know what they generally indicate. They will be useful ways to categorize beers, alongside regional categories and brewing styles.

If there is any controversy about whether a particular brewery falls into a particular category, then we should look at the definitions that you've mentioned above, and evaluate the categorization in light of them. Until then, what's the problem? —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 03:37 Z

The problem is in the phrase you have just used: "most beer drinkers know what they generally indicate". Among the founding principles of Wikipedia is that the information contained here should be verifiable. I am trying to indicate with references to reliable sources that there is no verifiable evidence that the term microbrewery is solid enough to use in an encyclopedia as a category - that all we have is the gut feeling of various drinkers that they roughly know what it means, and a variety of formal definitions of size. So the problem is that it is a misleading, unverified, POV term and when used as a category immediately invites editors to indulge in POV Original Research. The main information available for whether a brewery goes into the microbrewery category will be the editor's general gut feeling. That people use the term is not in dispute - I use the term in speech to fellow beer geeks and in articles I have written [9]. What is in dispute is the usefulness of a vague POV term as a category. The term, while used, is widely acknowledged as being vague, and is being replaced by the term craft brewery, which is also seen as problematic. What people mostly want to indicate is that they are unhappy with the "big" brewers, and would like to support either their local brewery, or an interesting brewery from another country that they have heard good things about. My suggestion is that we just turn things around, and look at categorising the "big" breweries rather than the non-"big" breweries. This will be easier because there are fewer of them. Criteria will be easier to draw up. And it will solve the problem of which regional brewery category the multi-site breweries should be placed. The end result will be the same. All breweries not placed in the "big" brewery category will be the sort of brewery that drinkers gut instinct tells them is a microbrewery - ie: 95% of the breweries on Wikipedia. SilkTork 09:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just use the superset of the very concrete definitions you yourself cited? Nothing vague about that. And what is the verifiable definition of a "big" brewery? —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 14:40 Z

• One of the notability criteria for inclusion of companies on Wiki is: "The company's or corporation's share price is used to calculate stock market indices ^{1 2}. Being used to calculate an index that simply comprises the entire market is excluded." Footnotes: "* ^Note 1 : Examples of such stock market indices: Dow Jones Industrial Average, S&P 500, S&P 400, and S&P 600, CAC 40, Nikkei 225, FTSE 100 Index, FTSE 250 Index. See list of stock market indices for more.
• ^Note 2 : Companies that form the bases for stock market indices will almost certainly satisfy the first criterion. However, this criterion ensures that our coverage of such indices will be complete regardless." Other criteria could be that the company has brewing plant in at least two different countries. Stuff like that. If you're interested we could work on that together.

The other notion I'm not sure about - are you suggesting that we have a series of categories for breweries by size, ranging from global down to brewpub? As I indicated above, I'm not sure of the value of judging all breweries by size - though there is, I acknowledge, a widespread interest in differentiating "mass-market"/"global" breweries from the rest. Once, however, we get away from the "mass-market" brewery philosophy, people's interest in splitting into precise sizes fades quickly. There are other ways of categorising breweries, as I indicated above - such as by age. In the UK we have a particular interest in certain breweries which are commonly over 100 years of age which we term "Regional Breweries". These are of varying sizes - their main grouping is by age, and by sphere of influence (the region). British beer geeks are constantly debating which breweries are "Regional" and which ones are not. And, while Greene King was growing in size the term "Super Regional" was used. Not to do with size - but to do with distribution of beer. My point in all this, is that there are many ways of grouping breweries. Grouping them by country was seen as the most popular and most workable way. At the time the beer cats were reorganised the Microbrewery cat got left behind because it was placed off in a side-shoot of Brewing. That it got left was a mistake. But I'm quite happy to debate the issues. Something positive may come from this. SilkTork 18:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't suggesting a range of categories. A brewpub is a different type of brewery, which typically only brews beer for in-house service. Some brewpubs are also microbreweries.

But that's beside the point. If there is a dispute about whether something is a microbrewery, we can use the superset of the criteria you mentioned further above. That's not vague. What's wrong with that? —Michael Z. 2006-07-13 21:16 Z

• Sorry - I'm being a bit blond. Could you rephrase? I think you're suggesting that we use the varying definitions of microbrewery as criteria for deciding if something is a microbrewery? But you can't mean that, as the definitions are shifting sands. I'm having problems with the word "superset". I don't know what that means in this context. SilkTork 22:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm suggesting that in the case of a dispute, if an article meets any of the three definitions of microbrewery you cited, then it can be categorized as a microbrewery. How is that "shifting sands"?

Besides, I think you may be imagining a problem that doesn't exist. I haven't seen any disputes about breweries being categorized as microbreweries. —Michael Z. 2006-07-14 02:02 Z

• I'm clearing fighting a lost cause here. The microbrewery category is here to stay - so we need to now work out the best way forward. I will honour my commitment to making it work and populating it appropriately - but you do need to explain to me very clearly what you want. Do you want to continue this on the Project page, my talk page or yours? SilkTork 18:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a logical category. If we also need to add Category:Craft breweries or a few others because of local standards then we can. Nothing wrong with these being included under Category:Types of breweries. Vegaswikian 19:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course there is a definition. Any brewery that's not one of the 2 dozen or so major breweries is a microbrew. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that, in Britain at least, there is a legal definition: breweries under a certain production level, in volume produced per year, get tax breaks. I will see if I can look up what that production level is. --Stlemur 15:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 21:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am merging all of these into one vote -- I see no reason why someone would vote differently for one over the others.--M@rēino 14:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Cultural icons
• Category:Cultural icons of the 1950s
• Category:Cultural icons of the 1960s
• Category:Cultural icons of the 1970s
• Category:Cultural icons of the 1980s
• Category:Cultural icons of the 1990s
• Category:Cultural icons of the 2000s

Delete due to non NPOV. who is or isn't an icon is a matter of opinion. Drmagic 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. (Applies to all the below). Chicheley 19:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, POV conerns TheGrappler 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no objective criteria for inclusion. Carlossuarez46 21:28, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stop this vote and speedy this one in the bit bucket Antares33712 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, icon is not POV, if defined by the media 216.141.226.190 06:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should actually be a speedy merge. Category:Hanna-Barbera and Cartoon Network Studios series was created in April 2006, for apparently no reason at all, and various series are staggered between both categories. --FuriousFreddy 02:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 03:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Cartoon Network TV series per naming convnetion, dropping the Hanna-Barbera as the Cartoon Network is the current company name (Hanna-Barbera redirects to Cartoon Nework). Then create a new sub-category Category:Cartoon Network characters. -Lady Aleena @ 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Lady Aleena's modfication. Some of the series (serieses?) really were Hana–Barbera, and predated Cartoon Network. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Series is both singular and plural. -LA @ 06:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from June 27 for more discussion Tim! 17:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If "and Crown Dependencies" is added it will be possible to allocate the airports in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to this category, which will tidy up the parent category. This category is a subcategory of two other parent categories which use the phrase "British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies". Choalbaton 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator. Choalbaton 16:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't there some more general term that could be used instead of "Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies" and avoid the ridiculously long name? How about Category:British airports outside Great Britain? --JeffW 05:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In short, no. Your proposal ignores Northern Ireland and the term "British" has far too many shades of meaning to be a good option here. Chicheley 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 09:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as the Channel Islands and IoM are inaccurately listed under UK for the moment. --Ayrshire--77 08:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pointless extra click. Category:Religion and Category:Philosophy are rightly separately, and it is no more appropriate to create a portmanteau category for portals than it would be to combine the subject area categories. Honbicot 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Honbicot 16:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 13:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Steel 19:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DiePerfekteWelle 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For Wikipedia, it's time we call a truce of neutrality on this so-called "culture war." This category is admittedly ethnocentric, as the intro clearly states that this divisive war only applies to the political climate in the United States. The disclaimer on talk pages that the topic may be controversial suffices. Delete. DiePerfekteWelle 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 09:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 13:56, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If kept, inclusion/exclusion criteria would be what? TheGrappler 17:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If the argument is that something happening in just in the United States is not notable, that doesn't make sense. Mere reporting what issues are included in the culture wars is not biased.Although the problem of bias in such articles is always a problem, I dont see why the category itself is problematic. Perhaps a rename would be in order such as Category:North American cultur war topics or Category:United States culture war topics.
• Delete Articles should be grouped by subject area, not media impact. Nathcer 21:28, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename (I boldly implemented Carlossuarez46's suggestion as less ambiguous). --RobertG ♬ talk 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match its 39 siblings. Chicheley 13:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- per naming conventions. -- Longhair 04:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ancient Roman murder victims, otherwise you can add Aldo Moro and virtually every murdered Roman pope. Carlossuarez46 21:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing this on the articles about front rank politicians - which suffer from serious category clutter - and it just doesn't add anything. It isn't a defining characteristic and according to the text some of them were only honorary members. We shouldn't be categorising people by every conceivable affiliation. Chicheley 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Chicheley 12:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and redefine to remove the honorary members. It may indeed be a defining characteristic for active Rotarians. Anirvan 21:05, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Michael 04:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I can't see how it can be a defining characteristic of anyone prominent enough to deserve an article. Choalbaton 13:59, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Critically this is (1) unlikely to be significant enough to mention in the article, and (2) therefore go uncorroborated and unsourced, besides (3) not being a terribly useful thing to search by anyway. Perhaps a list? TheGrappler 17:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; while I tend to agree many memberships are not noteworthy, their removal should be systematic. There's no point in deleting Rotarians and keeping Lions, Moose, Elks and Jaycees, not to mention Iron Arrow Honor Society members, Eagle Scouts, Phi Beta Kappas and so on. -choster 19:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Antares33712 23:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have far sillier cats than this 216.141.226.190 06:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please get an account and nominate some of them for deletion. Twittenham 12:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial. Osomec 11:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hobbies, interests, personal tastes, clubs etc, etc are not category material. Twittenham 12:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defining characteristic. Category clutter. Chicheley 12:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Chicheley 12:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I nominated this cat for deletion previously, but in less than three months it has acquired two more sports people. It should eventually be bigger.--Chaser T 12:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question is not whether it could grow, but whether it should grow. Category:People with a brain could grow. Chicheley 13:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I don't think we'd have to put that many people in the cat you suggest. ;) You haven't really offered a clear reason for deletion. I think it could be marginally useful to find ambidextrous sports people. Why do you think we should delete this?--Chaser T 14:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have given two reasons, and they are both perfectly clear in my opinion Chicheley 19:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial information. --musicpvm 16:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and aboves. -- Steel 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Almost empty; also useless. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Much too trivial. No-one has an article because they are ambidextrous. Choalbaton 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. First off, ambidextrousness is a defining characteristic. Despite what Choalbaton would assert, many of the people on this list do indeed have articles because they are ambidextrous, or more directly because that talent augmented their athletic ability -- but anyways, that's a bogus reason for deletion, because 99% of the existing categories (like "musician" or "autodidactic" or "Catholic") fail to sum up in one phrase why the person is notable. Also, an update: I just more than doubled the size of this cat in about five minutes, from 8 to 18. There are Ambidextrous people, despite what Slgrandson thinks.--M@rēino 14:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't dispute that this could gain a significant number of members, but (1) unlikely to be significant enough to mention in the article, and (2) therefore go uncorroborated and unsourced, besides (3) not being a terribly useful thing to search by anyway. Perhaps a list would be better? TheGrappler 17:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep against nom Antares33712 14:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ambidextrity is a very unique trait and not everybody has. We have far sillier cats than this. KEEP 216.141.226.190 06:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial. Osomec 11:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fear for the long term usefulness of the category system as people will keep creating trivial categories. Even if most of them get deleted, the overall situation will get worse and worse. There is a systemic tendency to accumulate trivial categories as it is much harder to delete a category than to create one. Twittenham 12:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ramseystreet 12:54, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Despite the claims to the contrary, this is trivia. There is a search function which can be used to find the word "ambidextrous" and that is sufficient. Nathcer 21:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the usual style. Chicheley 12:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Honbicot 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{{What does "liberalism" means in a French context? This is very slippery category, because "liberalism" hasn't got the same sense in the US and in France. In France, "liberalism" refers to economic liberalism, and is associated with right-wing parties, while in the States it is opposed to "conservative". But a party such as the Sarkozy's UMP could be alternatively qualified as "conservative" and "liberal", and includes people from both tendencies!!! This is understandable enough, if one gets that this means that one may be conservative in the social sense and liberal in economics policies. Furthermore, "liberalism", in this French context, is opposed to gaullism, which Jacques Chirac claims to be the heir, a claim laughed out by all political commentators! User:Intangible who created this category has asked for deletion of Category:Far right political parties in France and attempts to substitute the current classification with US criterias, which is a form of ethnocentrism and lack of understanding of the French context, where left/right criterias are used since the French Revolution.Tazmaniacs 12:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)}}[reply]

• Strong Keep. There is an article Liberalism and radicalism in France that discusses all of this. Intangible 13:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article doesn't discuss all of this, and is like a history dissertation, which should be better seen as an essay on comparing these political families rather than as an argument (where is it?) claiming that "liberalism" is similar to "radicalism". Intangible seems to forget (or plainly to ignore, which is worst in the extent that he is asking for many deletions just now) that the Radical-Socialist Party was Republican while "liberals" where historically Orleanists, that is, Royalists!!! So, now Royalists & Republicans, same fight? This shows total lack of understanding of basics of France in the 19th century... Tazmaniacs 13:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't liberals be royalists? I mean really, one of the main liberal parties of Europe, the VVD has no problem with a constitutional monarchy in the Netherlands at all; the same can be said for liberal parties elsewhere in Europe. Intangible 13:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Because there is something called the French Revolution and the king was guillotined! Being a royalist today in France definitely qualifies you as far right whatever the claims made. It is no use to refering to other countries, where constitutional monarchy may have been transformed into a democratic modern regime. In France, democracy and liberal democracy is called: the French Fifth Republic. The only "liberal royalists" in France were the Orleanists, whom have stopped being royalists since the death of the comte de Chambord in the end of the 19th century. Tazmaniacs 14:04, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into category:Political parties in France. There is just no need for these subdivisions. Chicheley 13:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Liberal Alternative is a French liberal party and thus should be categorized as such. This is just a logical extension of categorization of Category:Liberal parties. Should the category Category:French fascist parties be deleted as well? I don't think so. Intangible 15:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dahn 09:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - FrancisTyers · 02:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename per nom as least ambiguous suggestion. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This renaming proposal is just a holding job to prevent confusion between this categories for government ministers. The whole "people of religion" categorization scheme needs to be reviewed, and when that is done this category might prove to be redundant. Chicheley 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for now. Chicheley 11:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Religious ministers; IMHO "Ministers of religion" is too easily read as "Ministers of Religion."-choster 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is what I proposed at first, but it is clumsy and not normal English. Chicheley 09:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Religious ministers. JIP | Talk 06:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Religious ministers" could be read as "Government ministers with a religious bent". Choalbaton 13:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Bent government ministers with religion"...?  Chuckle, David Kernow 12:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Since all the other suggestions are ambiguous in one way or another I suggest Rename to Category:Ministers (religious) --JeffW 03:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I don't see how JeffW's proposal removes the ambiguity problem, so the best option is to follow standard English usage. Twittenham 12:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article only contains one article and is at the nub of a bit of a mess. The article is about a government minister, so I suggest this is merged into Category:Assassinated politicians, which contains hundreds of article. Looking up the tree we find category:Murdered ministers, which is being used for government ministers, and category:Ministers, which is being used for religious ministers. They need to be dealt with too, but I've looked at the "people of religion" categories before, and sorting them into a consistent form would be a massive task. Best to leave that for another time and just deal with this one small piece of confusion now. Chicheley 11:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator. JIP | Talk 06:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Choalbaton 14:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 18:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category seems to have been created by editor Nropsevolselawobmij who is the only one using it, and who has been using it to tag people who were merely accused of plagiarism. It people prefer an "accused plagiarist" category, that might be an appropriate replacement but seems to me kind of pointless. Better just to lose it altogether. Uucp 11:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Plagiarism is not a black and white issue. Chicheley 11:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is too serious and complicated an issue for a category, where there is no opportunity to give context or explanation for an individual's inclusion. This could be acceptable as a list (if the main plagiarism article is too full), but it needs to be accompanied by an extra word like accused or admitted. By the way, the category's five members, before they were removed by three different editors, were Alan Dershowitz, Laurence Tribe, Joe Biden, Blair Hornstine, and Kaavya Viswanathan. ×Meegs 14:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep -- if I'm allowed to weigh my opinion as the author of the category. Accused plagiarists are usually too borderline to merit inclusion, while the rest are pretty much admitted, and quite obvious too. It might not be "NPOV" i.e. Wiki-P.C. to call Joe Biden a plagiarist, but he admitted to it and it put the brakes on his aspirations to higher office. Blair Hornstine admitted to it too, as did Viswanathan eventually. William Swanson would be yet another addition to the category, from recent years alone. It can be quite fleshed out as a category if all the systemic bias in abuse of the word "accused" can be overcome, and besides, the article Plagiarism gives goodlines about what exactly it is. --Nropsevolselawobmij 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing Admin the above user has been permanently blocked for sockpuppetry and inappropriate choice of username, feel free to disregard the (to date) only keep comment. Carlossuarez46 22:52, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and the editor should think about changing his username which sounds a little like a personal attack (read backwards). Carlossuarez46 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Twittenham 12:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories are being used inconsistently. Merge into the broader Category:Assassinated monarchs. Chicheley 11:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --musicpvm 16:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was found deleted --Kbdank71 15:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged with Category:Fictional television programming. Both of them are about television programming inside works of fiction, the only difference being that in the former category, the programming is also fictional. This distinction is useless, as real-life television programming inside works of fiction doesn't have articles. It also creates confusion, as for example Jesus and Pals is in the latter category, even though it is a fictional television program. JIP | Talk 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Category:Fictional fiction books was also upmerged recently. This should be merged for the same reason; it's confusing over-categorization. --musicpvm 08:28, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Confusing. Chicheley 11:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Michael 04:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this category, which is not in Category:Government ministers by country right after creating the conventionally named Category:Government ministers of FranceChicheley 08:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above. Chicheley 08:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 20:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refers to The Beano. Has two entries and little potential for growth. Merge into parent cat Category:The Beano. —Blotwell 07:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Chicheley 08:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. David Kernow 20:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This repurposing would only require deleting one member (Bash Street School) and would fit the category into the Category:Fictional towns and cities hierarchy. —Blotwell 07:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are empty or have one article and should be deleted, Category:Australian sportswriters serves the same purpose and is consistent with the supercategory category:Sportswriters.--Peta 06:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Australian sportswriters per nom. --musicpvm 07:08, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above Michael 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per nom. Chicheley 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per nom. David Kernow 20:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category was moved out of process, the name as it currently is actually excludes manga on the web. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The rename would excluded all webcomics that do not originate from Japan, most notably Megatokyo, Sexy Losers, and Grim Tales from Down Below. --TheFarix (Talk) 13:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Neither category should be deleted, nor should they be merged. We do have articles for Japanese webcomics here on enwiki, and they are manga, not "manga-inspired". For western comics that emulate the manga form, the "Anime and manga inspired webcomics" category is more accurate. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 18:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Or, as an alternative proposal, we could merge the two categories into a single one called "Webmanga and manga-inspired webcomics" or something like that. There's no need to mix "anime" into it since we're dealing with sequential art, not animation. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 20:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither should be deleted, nor should they be merged. The name of the second one should not have anime removed.

Webmanga is a neologism that should be avoided.

Mea Culpa. I was BOLD. The contents of the original category (at the the time) did not fit the very misleading name that it was given. NONE of the contents were webcomics that were the intellectual property of a company or artist that had produced Japanese-language anime or Japanese language-manga. There were (and continue to be) several comics listed the category which are doujinshi-style derivitives on someone else's intellectual property or that were marked as "manga" by an American publisher.

Most of the entries in the current inspired category often contain a sentence in the lead that says "xyz comic was drawn by so-and-so in anime-style"

Examples (notes, emph, and comments added):

• Anime Arcadia: "The comic is drawn in the anime style,"
• Nana's Everyday Life: "a [Illustrated fanfiction.. err] webcomic...based on Elfen Lied [a manga/anime] and, to a lesser degree, Gunslinger Girl [a manga/anime]"
• "Tomoyo42's Room [another illustrated fanfiction] follows the duo in a world where they have the relationship only hinted at in the anime. "

(There are some notable comics that don't rip-off other people's copyrights which do this too:)

• "Inverloch is a popular webcomic drawn in manga style" ...
• Then there are some like Planet Zibes which I would be hard pressed to define as anime or manga-style. (Further comments on the artwork withheld.)

I would also like to note that the two articles that are now in the "Ani-manga" category either only recently added to the wikipeida (July 3) or they were only recently categorized as webcomics (July 11). They did not exist at the time the second category was created. --Kunzite 02:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:48, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All contents in the category are up for deletion, as well as being superseded By new category placed in Wikimedia Commmons - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Australian_State_Route_shields. Boochan 06:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is way too broad. Every other song with an article at Wikipedia is related to love. I don't think it's necessary to put them all into a category as it's not a special characteristic. --musicpvm 06:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Even though I agree this category has the potential to be colossal, I don't think it's that different from category:Protest songs or category:Gay anthems. So keep, but it still deserves a watchful eye.--Mike Selinker 07:44, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There is a category of lists of lovesongs, which may be more useful (I haven't looked at any of the lists though). Chicheley 08:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 16:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. May as well be "List of almost every song in existence" -- Steel 23:33, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there are Protest, Patriotic, Novelty, Gay Anthem, Blues, Gay, Comedy and Gospel songs already in the songs by genre cat, so not all songs are love songs. It would be useful if someone wishes to do some research on love songs if they were grouped together in a cat. SilkTork 09:58, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although not persuaded by the nominator's comments; I say delete based on POV. There is no consensus what is a Love Song, it's just someone's POV. One might view all hymns as love (of God) songs. One might view the "my lover up and left me" song as a love song, too. Carlossuarez46 21:32, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Way too broad. Ramseystreet 12:56, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The description for this category is "This category contains a list of videos that has cameo appearance by Snoop Dogg and/or weren't released as standalone singles of his." I don't consider a Snoop Dogg cameo in a music video a notable enough characteristic to deserve its own category. --musicpvm 06:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Michael 07:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom -- Steel 23:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge into Snoop videos or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antares33712 (talk • contribs)
• Keep per Antares33712 -- Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 20:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A Snoop videos category does not exist, as it should not, so there should definitely not be a category for his appearances in other artists' music videos. This is trivial information. Category:Music videos by artist was not being used for actual music videos but home video/DVD releases. I have moved the other subcategories to Category:Music DVDs where they belong. This category is now the only remaining one in Category:Music videos by artist which should be deleted as articles about songs do not need to be further categorized into video categories. --musicpvm 22:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn/keep --Kbdank71 14:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm nominating this for a couple of reasons:

• IMHO, it's very misleading to list people from other communities in the Hampton Roads area as being from "Virginia Beach".
• Virtually everyone in that region calls it "Hampton Roads". I should know; I recently graduated from law school there.

I'd also accept Category:People from the Hampton Roads area. Just so long as it's not linked to a specific city! — Dale Arnett 05:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Its one member did live in the actual city of Virginia Beach, VA. How about we just wipe-out the category's extensive preamble and leave the cat for the city? It does have a population of 400k, so it can surely support one by itself. Also, the Hampton Roads category the creator intended is difficult to categorize; it does not belong as a subcategory of Category:Virginia Beach, Virginia, nor any of the other cities. ×Meegs 07:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to comment: I'd be willing to accept that. In fact, I'm the one who changed the preamble to reflect the broad scope of the category. If we leave the category solely for the city itself, I'm more than willing to withdraw the nomination. — Dale Arnett 14:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Congratulations on graduating from William & Mary, Dale! Good luck on the bar exam!--M@rēino 14:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Actually, it was Regent. :) Thanks! — Dale Arnett 04:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge all. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both should be renamed per previous discussions.

• Category:Marvin Gaye singles to Category:Marvin Gaye songs - both contain mostly the same articles (merge)
• Category:Martha and the Vandellas singles to Category:Martha and the Vandellas songs (rename)

--musicpvm 05:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per previous CFR discussions (April 28, June 9 and July 5). I am also adding the below categories that I just dug-up with Google ×Meegs 06:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Modest Mouse singles to Category:Modest Mouse songs
• Category:Javine singles to Category:Javine songs
• Category:Twista singles to Category:Twista songs
• Category:Petula Clark singles to Category:Petula Clark songs
• Category:Cameo singles to Category:Cameo songs
• Category:Fluke singles to Category:Fluke songs

Sorry about that, didn't realise there was a policy when I created the cat. Move is fine with me! Martin Hinks 07:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Beverley Knight singles to Category:Beverley Knight songs
• Category:The Killers singles to Category:The Killers songs
• Category:Jamelia singles to Category:Jamelia songs
• Category:A Tribe Called Quest singles to Category:A Tribe Called Quest songs
• Category:Moby singles to Category:Moby songs
• Category:INXS singles to Category:INXS songs

I created this category. I'm fine with the change, if that's what the general policy is. Sorry if I chose the wrong one. Eixo 00:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it. It's a very recent change.--Mike Selinker 05:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Puffy AmiYumi singles to Category:Puffy AmiYumi songs
• Category:Gorillaz singles to Category:Gorillaz songs
• Category:Rammstein singles to Category:Rammstein songs
• Category:Nas singles to Category:Nas songs

Adding this nomination from Provelt:

• Category:Lostprophets singles to Category:Lostprophets songs

Since Category:Singles by artist does not exist any more. ProveIt ^(talk) 16:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adding this nomination from Provelt:

• Category:Papa Roach singles to Category:Papa Roach songs

There is no more Category:Singles by artist. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Man, how do these keep hiding? Rename all.--Mike Selinker 06:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I made The Killers singles. Rename all, better name and more general. --*kate 01:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Ramseystreet 12:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom.--Esprit15d 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy keep based on the strong consensus of July 3rd's discussion. ×Meegs 11:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to try this again. I tried last week. Better category name, consistent with other saints categories. This is a very small category. --South Philly 04:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge to Category:American saints. How is Category:United States saints consistent with other saints categories? They use country adjectives. The adjective for the United States of America is "American". This is the accepted naming conventions for hundreds of U.S.-related articles. --musicpvm 06:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. Look at Category:Saints by country and it is clear that the reverse merge follows the form used for every other subcat. Vegaswikian 07:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close The previous discussion, which stands as an overwhelming decision to use Category:American saints, hasn't even been closed yet. Chicheley 08:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 20:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better category name, consistent with other webcomic categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:17, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And done. Lincalinca 04:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Entire category is subject to change frequently, especially as the trade deadline approaches yearly, when the roster expands yearly, and during every offseason. Small category that requires much attention (see previous statement). Minnesota Twins roster already exists. -- Win777 02:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 06:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Current player categories are a bad idea. --musicpvm 06:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Requires too much focus on present and keeping up to date Michael 07:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Use a template for the current squad. That's what we do in England. Chicheley 08:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already being done ... which is yet another reason to delete the cat.--M@rēino 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rosters, please. --*kate 01:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete
• Merge into Category:Minnesota Twins players. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Minnesota Twins players ... I like the idea of a merge since there is no emphasis on staying current with the roster. --RyguyMN 22:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per above. Many of the players are in both categories, but a few need to be merged. - EurekaLott 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 15:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title is ambiguous, as "limited-access road" can mean anything from a full freeway to a local surface road for which driveway access is limited. See [10] for evidence of the latter:

Limited access road for the purposes of this Strategy (section 5.6.3) is a local road occupied by a district/city council, where the number of accesses onto that road from properties is limited, due to road safety and visibility reasons.

The same is true of "controlled access":[11]

"Controlled access highway" means every highway, street or roadway in respect to which owners or occupants of abutting lands and other persons have no legal right of access except at such points only and in such manner as may be determined by the public authority having jurisdiction over such highway, street or roadway.

On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge, freeway is a term with only one modern meaning - a road with full control of access. Motorway is a similar term, but is not all-encompassing; motorway status implies certain standards and the banning of slow vehicles like bicycles. Many non-motorways are freeways. --SPUI (T - C) 09:03, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to either Category:Freeways or Category:Freeways and motorways. —Scott5114↗ 09:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Freeways is a more intuitive title, and as SPUI explains, it's also more accurate. Savor the double-whammy. — Jul. 1, '06 [13:37] <freak|talk>
  • Addendum: "Freeways and motorways" sounds like a reasonable compromise, as this is a category that primarily contains geographical subcategories (named according to localisms) rather than the actual articles. Actually, Category:Limited-access roads by country should also be changed... — Jul. 3, '06 [13:50] <freak|talk>
• Rename per well-weasoned nom. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Just decided the other way at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 30#Category:Freeways to Category:Freeways and motorways. "Freeway" is an Americanism, isn't used in a consistent way in America, and isn't used worldwide. Heck, many freeways aren't free. Let's stop category thrashing. --William Allen Simpson 18:40, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Limited-access roads" is a vague term that no user would intuitively use. — Jul. 1, '06 [18:45] <freak|talk>
  • "Free as in freeway" means free from cross traffic. Not all free software is free as in beer. I explain the problem with other names; please deal with my arguments. --SPUI (T - C) 21:31, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody really needs to address the strawmen, as both clearly fit quite well into "limited-access roads", but wouldn't in freeway, expressway, or motorway.
    1. Reminder: the Germans invented the concept,^{[citation needed]} and the original term would be "Autobahn". That would be nicely unambiguous.
    2. Reminder: in the US, the concept was copied after seeing the autobahns during WW2, and is called the "Interstate Highway System", not the "Freeway" system.
    3. Category:Freeways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was explicitly rejected and deleted. That term isn't even consistent between US states, let alone around the world!
    4. Category:Freeways and motorways was also rejected, because some motorways are not free from cross traffic.
    5. The whole purpose of this category is broad generality, distinguishing common roads and streets from more notable thoroughfares.

       A term like "limited-access roads" is neutral because it's not commonly used, and is intended to be more of a definition than a term. --Vossanova

    6. There are supposed to be subcategories for each jurisdiction, so that each can have a more clear expression that complies with local usage. See Category:Limited-access roads by country.
    7. See also List of slang terms for freeways and expressways.
    8. Trying to find a word or phrase that is world scope and unambiguous is a fools' errand. We've picked something clear, let's move on, and stop category thrashing.

    --William Allen Simpson 01:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • A term like "limited access roads" may be neutral, but if so it has the wrong meaning. According to [12] (if that doesn't work go to Vol 3 Part 8 Appendix 5 in [13]), part of Brougham Street (43°32′54″S 172°39′11″E / 43.548439°S 172.652936°E / -43.548439; 172.652936) in Christchurch is a limited access road. Take a look at an aerial - it's a typical surface road. Not a motorway. --SPUI (T - C) 01:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Looks like a limited access road to me. --William Allen Simpson 02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you need to do some studying until you understand that we don't want a category of every road to which the maintaining authority restricts access. --SPUI (T - C) 02:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also limited access road, mhich I just wrote. --SPUI (T - C) 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nobody much cares, since you seem to be re-writing all the definitions on the fly. At this point, the nomination should be suspended until many eyes have had an opportunity to review your revisionism. --William Allen Simpson 02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Is there something wrong with the article? Bring it up there if you think so. --SPUI (T - C) 02:36, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Freeways is an Americanism. All the options have drawbacks, but I think category:Freeways and motorways has the least. Chicheley 23:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could work too, but the current location doesn't. --SPUI (T - C) 23:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• change to category:Freeways and motorways per Chicheley. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 01:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment -- and now it's hard to know what should be used, as SPUI just substantially re-wrote the Freeway article, eliminating terms he didn't like, such as "superhighway". --William Allen Simpson 02:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Superhighway" can refer to both freeways and high-speed surface roads. Thus it does not belong in the intro for freeway. --SPUI (T - C) 02:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not around here, it doesn't.^{[citation needed]} Yet another reason why "Freeway" shouldn't be used in the category system. except for specific locales. --William Allen Simpson 02:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Limited access is either free or toll so it might be a valid parent but it should not replace either a freeway, autoban or toll road type of category. 208.57.64.97 22:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Freeways are free of cross traffic, not necessarily free as in beer. --SPUI (T - C) 10:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• "Limited-access roads" seems less than straightforward to me – I guess a private road would be a limited-access road – so if the description "Freeways and motorways" or the like has the same scope as "Limited-access roads", I'd say rename. Regards, David Kernow 03:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to category:Freeways and motorways per Chicheley. Calsicol 00:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. While the current name may have problems, at this point it is the likely the most common term and most generic. Changing to anything including the word freeway is simply wrong since a freeway is a type of Limited-access road. A toll road is also one and so could a parkway, turnpike, autobahn and who knows how many other names and types. If the consensus is to rename, another choice that would be more netural would be Category:Expressway. Vegaswikian 05:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Further to my comment above, if "Expressway" has the same scope as the "limited-access roads" in the category, then rename to Category:Expressway per Vegaswikian above, as "Limited-access roads" more suggestive of private roads and the like than freeways, motorwats, etc. Regards, David Kernow 15:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Expressway" is an ambiguous term that sometimes refers to only freeways and sometimes to certain kinds of well-built surface roads. --SPUI (T - C) 09:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:High-speed roadways, as I was taught in driver's ed. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is very subjective and not the intent here. Many two-lane rural surface roads in Texas have speed limits higher than urban freeways. --SPUI (T - C) 07:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename. Limited access road is a much broader and more encompassing (and also less American centric) way to term them. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 20:22, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another "vote" that should not be counted, as my opening statements make it clear that "limited access roads" is not acceptable. --SPUI (T - C) 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another instance of you being uncivil and or pushing buttons as Tony suggests you do. My opinion is both valid and equal to yours. I don't accept your view in the opening premise, hence I've voiced my opposition to it. If you don't like it tough. You contention that limited access is inaccurate isn't born out by the "evidence" you provided. Limited access is by its very nature a road that has limited access (per your evidence). That is why the category is limited access. All freeways, autoroutes, and autobahns fit this description as do some expressways and highways. It's a much more encompassing category then the one you suggest and much less American centric. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 21:13, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your opinion is invalid in this case. Limited access includes city streets to which the city limits access. We want a category of freeways, not limited access roads. --SPUI (T - C) 22:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course my opinion is valid. I want a category for limited access roads, including ones that are city controlled. If you want a freeway one a second category should be created as this category encompasses more then a freeway one would. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • So if I were to create Category:Freeways and motorways as a subcategory of this and move everything into it, you wouldn't oppose that action? That is equivalent to moving this to Category:Freeways and motorways and then creating a new parent, so in fact, you would be supporting a rename. --SPUI (T - C) 22:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I would support the creation of the subcategory and the move of SOME of the material in the current category to it. However on a quick glance it doesn't appear that all of the information currently in "Limited access roads" would fit under "freeway". (This was the basis of my original objection too). For instance Expressway wouldn't fit under a Freeway category but does fit under limited access. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • Thanks for explaining your position - I understand now. I still believe the vast majority if not all of the stuff in the present category would mowe to the new one - note that most of the roads named "Foo Expressway" are freeways. --SPUI (T - C) 22:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • True a large number of them are, however I don't think it would be accurate to put Autobahn under "freeway" as they're not actually freeways in the strictest sense of the term. So too would "Limited Access Roads by Country" not have a place in a freeway category. However obviously "Freeway" would be at home in a freeway category as would articles like Interstate 5. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Maybe I don't understand your position then - how is an autobahn not a freeway? --SPUI (T - C) 22:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Because it's an Autobahn. Maybe we're getting caught on semantics, but calling an Autobahn a freeway to me just smacks of systemic bias toward the American POV. Limited access road seems a more POV neutral term to use that can be applied to Autobahns, Freeways, Motorways etc... I think a "freeway" category for American Freeways and anywhere else Freeway is the prevailing term would be outstanding however. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                      • There is no POV in using a shorter term than "road with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges". It is just plain stupid to split identical concepts by the language or dialect used in the country. See for instance elevator and lift. --SPUI (T - C) 22:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                        • While I certainly see your point I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. For instance we could just as easily create and move to Category:Motorway and put "freeway" information under it. However it would be just as incorrect as placing Motorway information under freeway. I know Limited Access Road is a mouthfull, using it as a supercategory and then placing "freeway" and "motorway" and "autobahn" under it helps maintain neutrality of the POV. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                          • Given that there's no POV involved, you're wrong. And using motorway is inaccurate, as there are non-motorway freeways in countries that use the term motorway - for instance the West Cross Route. --SPUI (T - C) 23:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                            • Your example would not be characterized as a freeway. At best it can be called a Limited Access Road. Motorway and Freeway are not synonyms but are seperate terms which refer to different types of roads. For instance a Motorway is a dual carrageway limited access road which has traffic in the left-right configuration in Great Britain and other commonwealth nations. A freeway however is a limited access divided highway with traffic in the right-left configuation and is generally located in the United States and her territories. An autobahn is again another form of road entirely. I think this is where the disagreement lies. You are (and correct me if I'm wrong) classifying all motorways, autobahns, expressway with limited access as "freeways" however this is just not correct. Infact I'm not even sure it would be entirely correct within the US as freeway is the primary term only in serveral western states like California. Freeway is not a term that can encompass Motorway, Autoroute or Autobahn but is a uniquely American term for an American road. Limited Access Road however has no such connotation. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                              • Wrong again. Princes Freeway, Monash Freeway, Freeways of Victoria... --SPUI (T - C) 23:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                • Australia uses "freeway" for some routes. How does this prove me wrong? Find a German route using Freeway, a Bristish Route using freeway, a Canadian route using freeway... Freeway is not an all encompassing term as you claim it is. Motorway, Autoroute, Autobahn, Freeway, are all names for the same level of route in different places in the world. None has the position to supercede the others. Only Limited Access Road or Divided Highway have that status. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                  • A freeway is a type of road, while a motorway is a class of road like an Interstate. There are freeways that are not motorways, just as there are freeways that are not Interstates. Unless you have another word that means "highway with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges", freeway will have to do. Or would you prefer the clunky Category:highways with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges? --SPUI (T - C) 23:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                    • I would prefer "Limited Access Road" as I stated a while ago. I believe that term is much more appropriate and encompassing of what I'm assuming you'd like to have in the category. For instance there are highways that while limited access divided highways are not freeways. For instance the Massachusetts Turnpike. This road is not a freeway but is a limited access divided highway and would have to be omitted if the category were moved to "freeway". So too would all autobahn articles. I don't subscibe to your assertion that Freeway is a type only. Freeway is just as much a class of road as Autobahn. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                      • The Massachusetts Turnpike is a freeway. Freeways are free of cross traffic, not necessarily free as in beer. A freeway is a highway with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges. Period. Autobahns are freeways. Interstates are freeways. Motorways are freeways. --SPUI (T - C) 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                        • Wrong. Motorways and Autobahns are not freeways. If they were, there would be some reference to them as such in those countries. However there is not. Same goes for Autoroutes in France and Quebec. Freeway does not encompass these terms anymore then you can call Interstate 5 and Autobahn. Also if you read the definition (which I'll be happy to provide) of "Freeway" it is defined as "A highway without tolls." Freeways must be free for travel without tolls. Turnpikes aren't freeways.JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                                          • That's like saying that the lift in a London Underground station is not an elevator, so we should have separate articles about elevators and lifts. You're wrong.
                                          • As for the definition, that's one of several definitions. If a freeway is truly "a highway without tolls", then any public road is a freeway. Common usage in some areas is to use "freeway" to mean a toll-free freeway, but the definition used by people that actually know their shit includes toll roads.
                                          • I've had enough of this crap. I'm going to move freeway to highway with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges if you don't stop. --SPUI (T - C) 00:16, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (moving indent) Why would it be wrong to have a seperate article for "lift"? Infact it would go a long way to countering US bias. As for the rest of the definition of freeway I left out it say, "see expressway". These terms everywhere I search are presented as meaning the same thing. All of them are different terms for Limited Access Divided Highway/Carriageways. Your suggested category is probably a bit much, but Category:Limited Access Divided Highway would probably be the ideal thing to move this too if we move it at all. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Motorway is also a type of road as well as a class. Read Motorway. As is an Autobahn or at least it was before you merged the article. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have marked this as needing a citation. --SPUI (T - C) 00:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be searching for one. For now I'd also like to point you toward our own Wiktionary which labels Motorway/Freeway/Autobahn as equal terms for the same type of road in different countries. So to does Websters and the Cambridge Dictionary. Cambridge goes so far as to state the definition of freeway as "US usage of Motorway" which supports my position that Freeway being used is just another form of systemic bias. Infact in both of those publications Expressway is presented as the nominal parent of Autobahn/Freeway/Expressway as the trifecta are limited access versions of Expressways. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, a motorway is "a wide road built for fast moving traffic travelling long distances". This is somewhat unclear, but our article on motorway makes it clear that bicycles are banned from motorways. On the other hand, they are allowed on some rural freeways, including many Interstates in the U.S. West. --SPUI (T - C) 00:29, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

True our article is more indepth. But as the failure of that merge pointed out there is no consensus that motorway should be replaced with freeway or that they are identical. Granted they are all terms for the same type and class of road, but no one who knows anything would mistake a freeway for a motorway for an autobahn. For a similar example no one would mistake a McIntosh Apple for a Granny Smith Apple for a Golden Delicious Apple. Granted they're all Apples but they're not the same thing. Apple would be the super category, just as Limited Acces Road or Limited Access Divided Highway should be here which should then be subordinate to just Highway just as Apple would be under Fruit. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:41, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I grew up in the east coast of the US, so to me a "Freeway" is a Californiaism. Now that I live in California, the word "Freeway" only refers to the superhighways that are not "interstates". I suspect the correct word for the US is "Superhighway" and the correct word for the UK is "Motorway". I don't know if "Superhighway" has any understood meaning outside of the US. If Category:Superhigways would not work, how about Category:Motorways and other superhighways. -- Samuel Wantman 07:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Superhighway" is yet another ambiguous term that can refer to a simple four-lane divided road with no access control. --SPUI (T - C) 09:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• relisted pursuant to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 10 --William Allen Simpson 00:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: all but one of the people that support Category:Freeways also support Category:Freeways and motorways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by spui (talk • contribs) 2006-07-11 10:15:24

Nota Bene: -- both Category:Freeways and Category:Freeways and motorways were rejected at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 30#Category:Freeways to Category:Freeways and motorways! Many things in this category aren't Freeways or Motorways. --William Allen Simpson 06:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Freeways and motorways. It's the most popular option and as good as any of the others. Honbicot 16:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT given the naming problems at freeway and the lastest move of that article to highway with full control of access and no cross traffic I suggest that this discussion be closed. If and when that problem is ever solved then this discusion can be started again using the wisdom gained from that debate over the article name. Vegaswikian 17:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey, I closed it "no consensus" once (quite obviously), and SPUI got it relisted. I'd agree to a speedy closure, no consensus. All in favor, say Aye! --William Allen Simpson 06:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Aye!. There is a solution that has yet to be found. I don't see any chance of getting consensus here given the entrenched positions. Vegaswikian 07:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Split "Limited" in this case can mean three things: either privately owned roads and privately owned toll roads, toll roads owned by governments which are not privately owned, or roads limited by traffic type (such as limiting traffic only to cars, and not trucks or tractors). The latter case is a freeway (US) or motorway (UK), or highway (in other EU states). The first case has not yet a category, the latter two have. So I suggest creating Category:Private roads, and when this category become to big, create Category:Private roads by country. Intangible 22:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Freeways and motorways. My comment from the last time this was discussed: "Freeway is USA, Canada and Australia, Motorway is nearly all other English speaking countries. Other names used, such as Autoroute or Autobahn are for non-English countries, and people from these countries when being taught English are taught either Freeway or Motorway. Limited Access is a term that is not used in the current definitions of either Freeway: "A freeway ... is a multi-lane highway (road) designed for high-speed travel by large numbers of vehicles, and having no traffic lights, stop signs, nor other regulations requiring vehicles to stop for cross-traffic." or Motorway: "A motorway (in the United Kingdom, Ireland, New Zealand and some other Commonwealth nations) is both a type of road and a classification. Motorways are highways designed to carry a large volume of traffic where a normal road would not suffice or would be unsafe, usually between cities. In the UK they are predominantly dual-carriageway roads, usually with three lanes in each direction, although four-lane and two-lane carriageways are also common, and all have grade-separated access." Though it may sound like I am opposing the suggestion, I am not. I like the idea of having a universal term to cover Freeway and Motorway. I am just not sure that Limited Access is the right term - just as I am not sure that Freeway by itself is the right term. Some expressway routes in USA and dual carraigeway routes in the UK are limited access, but do have crossings and traffic lights so do not qualify as Freeways or Motorways. We could debate various terms to cover what a Freeway/Motorway actually is and decide that Freeway is the most appropriate, which brings us back to the start. So, I'm not actually objecting to alternative terms, just expressing strong doubt that Limited access roads is a clearer term than Freeways and motorways." SilkTork 09:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Freeways and motorways. There is a large majority in favour of renaming, so a renaming should occur. Choalbaton 14:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if you pay, it isn't a "freeway". Carlossuarez46 21:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it is. Freeways are free of cross traffic, not free as in beer. --SPUI (T - C) 23:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose after further thought on the inherent ambiguity in "Freeway" demonstrated by SPUI's response to my comment and to similar comments made elsewhere, I am now convinced that the proposal is more likely to confuse than categorize like with like. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Restructure as Category:High-speed roads and subcategories Category:Motorways, Category:Freeways, etc... -- Samuel Wantman 07:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is high-speed? A two-lane Farm to Market Road in Texas with 70 mph speed limit? An old congested urban freeway with 30 mph speed limit? --SPUI (T - C) 11:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes to both. High-speed is a congested urban freeways (which you'd be putting in Category:Freeways and all the other subcategories you'd decide belong in the category (such as perhaps Category:Farm to market roads). All these roads, Freeways, limited access divided highways, state highways, thruways, expressways, motorways, etc... were designed for high speed. The top category can explain the differences between the different subcategories so people know where to look. It would say something like "the subcategories of High-Speed roads are roads designed for high speed. Congested urban freeways are high speed roads even if they no longer function as such." The distinctions you have been making are about the differences in the design of the roads, and what all of these roads have in common is that they were designed for high speed travel. -- Samuel Wantman 19:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Farm to Market Roads are (or once were) designed to connect farms to towns. The high speed is not due to their design but due to their straight and flat nature. --SPUI (T - C) 21:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: regardless of the problems with "limited access road" (even though this is the term used in legends on the majority of road atlases that I have seen), "freeway" is very much a localized term. SPUI, I'd think you know this. No one calls a highway a "freeway" in New Jersey. It's either the parkway, the turnpike, the highway, or the actual name/number of the of the highway, i.e. I-78. In California, otoh, freeway is used to mean highway, essentially. So making a localized term into a cat makes no sense. Take a look at Category:Rapid transit stubs, it's not called "subway" or "metro" stubs, which are both localized terms. lensovet 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because we have a better term there - rapid transit. Here we don't. In California, and in all other places it is used, a freeway is a road with no cross traffic and access only at interchanges. Would you support "freeways and motorways"? --SPUI (T - C) 15:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the sake of simplicity I would support "Freeways and Motorways". His point is valid however. Freeway is not used often if at all east of the Rockies. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 16:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really, a motorway? Seriously man, ask someone in the Northeast, hey, what's the closest motorway from here, and look at their reaction. The point is that both freeway and motorway are localized terms. What's more, they say little about their function - to me, a motorway would be a road for motor cars, which is essentially any road. Sure, that's not the definition, but you wouldn't know that unless you looked it up. Limited access road is not as ambiguous - you can easily tell that it means access is limited. Sure, on some roads, it's more limited than on others. But the point remains. lensovet 18:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Read the definition at limited access road. The limitation is on driveway access. --SPUI (T - C) 18:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point isn't what the definition is, it's what the perceived definition is. Seriously man, go out to your nearest store and look at a USA road atlas. Look at the legend in that atlas. Let me know what they call highways in it. I don't reach for the dictionary when I need a map. We shouldn't either. lensovet 06:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually that's the point. Motorway isn't used in America. It is however used in much of the English speaking world to refer to roads that while similar aren't identical to American freeways. Freeway is used in a good portion of the United States and even if not used by people in the east, the many of the termed highways are freeways by definition such as I-95. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 19:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just because something is a freeway by defition doesn't mean that every person that uses it will call it by that name. That's why there are different terms for rapid transit, such as metro and subway. Just because the NYC Subway is a metro by definition doesn't mean that calling it the NYC metro is appropriate. lensovet 06:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually I'm from back east for more years then I want to admit to. Freeway (no toll) and toll road were common terms. So freeway is common across the US contrary to what is stated above. Maybe it is based on the area you are from? In any case, the usage is not restricted to the west coast. Vegaswikian 05:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dunno where you've been living then. Look at the number of "freeways" in New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania. Then look at the numbers for California, for example. The reason the use is widespread out west is because the interstates are actually named that way, i.e. San Diego Freeway. At the east coast where I come from, there aren't any roads named "freeway", so the term itself isn't used in a general sense either. lensovet 06:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • PS. Even if you're using the term freeway, your meaning is not correct. A freeway, as it is used here, has nothing to do with the cost of the road and everything to do with the number of at-grade intersections that it has. lensovet 20:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Freeways and motorways, which is clear enough to all, I believe. There is no inference that all the roads are so called locally. Nathcer 21:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one said that such an inference exists; rather, if local roads aren't named that way, then people won't know what the word means. I'm not crazy – I've asked a number of people now, and people just don't use this term, at least in NJ. lensovet 21:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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