The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 14:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete all - the parent category is small with little or no likelihood of expansion. The subcats are subjective and require original research. Otto4711 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – this is by no means small, as there are dozens of subcats in this umbrella parent (one might as well delete Category:People). Friends is an ensemble cast – is this really original research, or merely self-evident? Occuli (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dozens? There are exactly two subcats under the parent, the other of which is nominated for deletion separately. And yes, deciding whether the "principal actors" in a series is given "roughly" the same amount of importance is OR. What does that even mean given roughly the same amount of importance? Are we talking about billing, screen time, number of episodes, salary? Otto4711 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: Firstly, surely it would've made sense for the discussion about the film category to have finished first before nominating these? Especially since these cats were brought up there: it doesn't make sense to divide discussion in two places. Also, the category doesn't fit the definition of small, since that says, "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". I fail to see how these categories "by their very definition" will be small. You then state that the categories are subjective, contradicting your belief that the categories will be "small": could this be your subjective opinion? Anyway, no this category doesn't have to be original research or subjective opinion, it has to be based on reliable sources as all categories do. See also my last comment on the film version of this CfD here. Finally, as Occuli says, Friends is a very very good example of an ensemble tv series, with a whole paragraph devoted in its article to discussing it. Deamon138 (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I should also say that there needn't be only two sub-categories of the main cat. There is room for a plays one, and an operas one perhaps. I don't watch operas or plays, so I have zero knowledge on those media, however someone more knowledgeable than me might want to create those cats if these ones aren't deleted. However, I'm not going to create those two. Deamon138 (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are 62 subcats going down 3 levels (and more further down). This is 'dozens'. Otto seems to have a touching belief that only the top level 'counts'. 'People who agree with Otto' is a subcat of 'People'. Occuli (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only reason Ensemble cast had so many subcats is because Ensemble comedy was improperly placed as a subcat of TV series with an ensemble cast, which is the narrower category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I added "Ensemble comedy" as a subcat of the TV series one, because that is what it seems to be being used for: it doesn't contain films. Of course, if these cats are kept, then I don't necessarily think we need subcats like that one at the moment. Maybe in the future, but right now, I don't think we have enough to further categorize each ensemble film, tv series etc as subcat of drama or comedy or whatever. However, if we keep Ensemble comedy, it should either be renamed to show what it is categorizing (ensemble comedy tv shows), or it should be added as a subcat of both the film and tv series ones if the cat is opened up to film ensembles too. Deamon138 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is also being used to house subcats for sketch comedy, comedy troupes and sitcoms (which is a totally inappropriate subcat since not all sitcoms feature ensemble casts). Otto4711 (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per comments and arguments at related CFD. "Ensemble" is indisputably a word that is commonly used, but I haven't seen any indication that there is a stable, concrete meaning underlying these uses that would provide an uncontroversial basis for categorization. Postdlf (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unless it's a one-person-show (or even primarily a one-person-show), they're all "ensemble" casts. - jc37 20:35, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Postdlf and comments at other related CfD. Without a stable definition, it's difficult to have these as categories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of the comments made at the link Postdif supplied still apply. The cats violate POV and OR. MarnetteD | Talk 16:12, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Since a hyphen is equally clear to a normal reader in effectively every situation, most people just use that. Well said, powerful argument.. Kbdank71 14:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use of non-standard characters in category names. This is change for change's sake and there is no need for it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Change for change's sake" implies that the nominator is bored and has decided to start moving categories around for no reason. This is clearly not the case; hyphens in date ranges are wrong, implying conjunction where we have disjunction. The tiny hyphens look unprofessional and contrast the guidelines we use in articles, creating a false distinction—categories, unlike the project namespace, are visible to readers. Waltham, The Duke of 03:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I'm suggesting is using a character that is on every standard keyboard in, as far as I know, the world, to make it easier on readers interested in this material, many of whom have probably never heard of WP:DASH, to find it. Most people, it is my firm belief, are going to use a hyphen in the search box and not an en-dash. Otto4711 (talk) Otto4711 (talk) 17:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And most people will end up in the search page anyway, because it is rather unlikely that a reader will type Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986-present) players in the search box. We have many long and/or complex category names which only experienced users of the encyclopaedia are expected to know in their precise form, dash or not. With the exception of some basic categories, and that after a reader has been acquainted with the basics of Wikipedia navigation, it is plausible to assume that most readers simply click at the bottom of articles to get to categories. Waltham, The Duke of 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative form suggested - Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986 – present) players Mayumashu (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:DASH reads in part "To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November)" it seems as though adding a space contradicts this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Otto, en dashes are standard characters. Please read MoS and the best external authorities on this matter. On a computer screen, moreover, the need for the slightly longer en dash is yet more important; it aids readability and carries important meaning per se. But whether in hard-copy or on-screen, "1989-present", taken by itself, looks like a gift received in 1986. The meaning to needs to be clearly in evidence through the use of an en dash: "1986–present". If I were starting again, in any case, I'd be going for "...Whitecaps players (since 1986)"—much better. Tony(talk) 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh come now. Do you honestly think that someone seeing Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players is going to think that "present" means gift? That someone, what, gave these players to someone for Christmas? Nonsense. I'm not suggesting that WP:DASH not be applied to article text. I'm suggesting that it not be applied to category titles because it is a barrier to our readers and we should not hinder navigation by using characters in category names that are non-intuitive to the average reader. Otto4711 (talk) 17:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Such confusion is rather unlikely to occur, granted. But this still is sloppy writing. And I seriously doubt the "non-intuitive" statement; many readers recognise the en dash even if they do not care to use it themselves, as goes with many aspects of proper writing. Waltham, The Duke of 18:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that they "don't care to use it themselves" is an argument against using n-dashes in category names. Since most readers probably don't care to use them, they won't while searching. Which means that endorsing these moves will waste a lot of time moving things around for no substantive gain. Otto4711 (talk) 23:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. En-dashes aren't present on the standard keyboard and most contributors, not being dash fetishists, don't bother keying in the html escapes to produce them. Since a hyphen is equally clear to a normal reader in effectively every situation, most people just use that. We should accomodate this normal practice and ensure that when people write the category title so, the article will join the category as intended. Readers are not affected adversely by this because the fraction of readers who care about the distinction is insignificant. Christopher Parham(talk) 05:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006 — present) players
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Kbdank71 14:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006 — present) players to Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006–present) players
Oppose use of non-standard characters in category names. This is change for change's sake and there is no need for it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And you keep using a "standard" response to such requests even when it is clearly erroneous; a "non-standard" character is already used, and we want to change it to the right one. If anything, you should be advocating the category's return to the hyphenated version. Instead, you insist on inertia for inertia's sake. Waltham, The Duke of 03:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, what I'm suggesting is using a character that is on every standard keyboard in, as far as I know, the world, to make it easier on readers interested in this material, many of whom have probably never heard of WP:DASH, to find it. Most people, it is my firm belief, are going to use a hyphen in the search box and not an en-dash. Otto4711 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One, the character can be created in the keyboard. Two, the version with the hyphen can be typed and one will find a soft redirect. The category is not made inaccessible as a result of the change; in contrast to most other category moves, where the initial category is deleted, moves from hyphenated to dashed versions should always leave the redirect behind. Waltham, The Duke of 04:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how to create it on the keyboard, either on Mac or PC, of which I use both. Nor am I particularly interested in learning how to, since the only place I frequent that has an issue with using hyphens is Wikipedia and it's not worth it to me to remember two different keyboard combinations and which is for which computer. I'm willing to bet that a lot of casual readers don't know how to make the character either. Making these categories soft redirects, IOW forcing another click on people for no reason, is a waste of the time of the admin who has to do it (even if by bot, it's still a waste of admin time) and it's a waste of time to the people seeking the categories either to try to guess whether there's a hyphen or n-dash or clicking through a redirect to get to the category. N-dashes in the text of articles? In most instances I find it pretty pointless but OK, if that's what people want who am I to say no? But n-dashes and category names? Bad idea and I will say no to it. Otto4711 (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You contradict yourself; using a hyphen in a search has no impact on searches when there are redirects. And I fail to see how one further click is such a waste of time for a reader, especially when it is as likely as not that they will not search for the category but click for it, or, if they do search, that they won't get the name right anyway and find themselves in a search page. Furthermore, this is not a permanent situation; sooner or later the technology will allow us to use "hard" redirects for categories, and this infrastructure that we are building now will be converted with minimal effort. In addition, you still haven't commented on the unprofessional style that is propagated by tolerating inconsistency between articles and categories. And you still haven't addressed my point: why are you opposing a move from a title which already has a character the usage thereof you object to and which we all agree is wrong? I acknowledge your position and I agree that you have every right to oppose the other nominations that you do, but your reaction in this one makes no sense at all. Waltham, The Duke of 19:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative suggested Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006 – present) players Mayumashu (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:DASH reads in part "To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November)" it seems as though adding a space contradicts this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, this one makes fools of us: an em dash, spaced? There is an urgent need for the MoS to knit together the punctuation practices here. Tony(talk) 05:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Toronto Blizzard (1986-93) players
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Kbdank71 14:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use of non-standard characters in category names. This is change for change's sake and there is no need for it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative suggested Category:Toronto Blizzard (1986 – 1993) players (But I support the nominated rename over the present name) Mayumashu (talk) 15:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:DASH reads in part "To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November)" it seems as though adding a space contradicts this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It does. Spaced en dashes should only be used when at least one of the two parts joined by the dash includes a space (for example, a full date on either side, or both, in contrast to plain years). On another note, I am not sure about using a year abbreviation or not here, but I shouldn't know about the conventions of these categories; in any event, a certain degree of consistency is desirable. Waltham, The Duke of 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank goodness the two-digit closing year is finally in evidence. It makes the reading easier. But an en dash simply must be used here. 1986–93, not 1986-93. Enter the 21st century, please. Tony(talk) 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; our readers care nothing for the distinction between dashes and hyphens in this context, and the proposed change is likely to reduce the functionality of these categories. Christopher Parham(talk) 05:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And how many of our readers do you represent? Because my impression is that non-usage of certain elements of the language does not necessarily entail inability to recognise or appreciate them. Waltham, The Duke of 19:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Wars
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Kbdank71 14:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. WP:DASH. In all cases, I propose changing - to – per the MoS. I am also proposing renaming *Category:Military units and formations of Soviet-German War to *Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet–German War for grammar's sake and *Category:Ecuadorian-Peruvian Conflict to *Category:Ecuadorian–Peruvian conflict for caps. (I am tagging these after I nominate, so please be patient.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the abstract I would support these to conform with WP:DASH, but the majority of your recent similar nominations from 1 SEP are not gaining a consensus. If those are closed without being accepted, I can't in good faith support these so soon after consensus decides otherwise on a virtually identical issue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Goodol'f. I also think WP:DASH should be clarified - it should either apply to both article names and category names, or to neither, since we have the further convention that these should in general agree with each other. Occuli (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can understand the rationale for wanting to apply it to articles but not categories; I don't necessarily think it should be an "all-or-none" thing. But if that indeed is the situation, it needs to be made clear in WP:DASH that those rules don't necessarily apply to categories. Or we can just do it in a case-by-case basis, as we've been doing, but that's a bit hit and miss and will result in some being changed and some not being changed, as we've been seeing. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The naming conventions, which apply equally to articles and categories, state: "For the use of hyphens and dashes in page names, see Manual of Style (dashes)." I don't think there are any "jurisdiction" issues here. Waltham, The Duke of 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to strict logic, no. But unfortunately this doesn't conform with recent precedent, so I'm trying to reconcile the two or at least find a way to deal with it. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use of non-standard characters in category names. This is change for change's sake and there is no need for it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Views Support renames that have dash dividing names of countries. support use of this dash over the shorter 'dash' but suggest use of a space between numbers representing years and dash. agree that WP:DASH needs revision - style, fundamentally, should not be prescribed for all by one or two (be they in published form or not); for consistency however, it would be ideal to conduct a massive vote/discussion, to determine majority view, and post the result on WP:DASH, and redo the vote periodically as the basis for revision of policy - this process could be used to maintain policy on style wikipedia-wide) Mayumashu (talk) 16:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:DATE, we don't put spaces in between a year and a dash in a date range. Deamon138 (talk) 03:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose use of any non-keyboard keys in category names. These just invite mistakes in use of the categories. Also oppose in article names for the same reason Hmains (talk) 17:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even the few issues that some people bring up in categories are not germane to the naming of articles; redirects make up for everything. And we have redirects here as well, which make sure that if one looks for the hyphen version of a category, one will find it and click to get to the proper category. It's not exactly what I'd call "impediment to navigation". Waltham, The Duke of 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well to me, it is kind of an "impediment to navigation". These moves will create a soft redirect at the original names, and let's fact it, 99% of people will search for the hyphenated version. Per Wikipedia:Double redirects, redirects that end up with a soft redirect (as double redirects do) is a bad for readers in the article space, so the same logic applies to categories as to why it impedes navigation. Deamon138 (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But are the two cases comparable in this way? Readers will usually search for articles, not categories; and most category names that include dashes are too long and/or complex to be found on the first try anyway. I daresay that only a small percentage of searches will be thus affected. Waltham, The Duke of 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the same reason as Hmains. We should keep things simple for contributors, rather than try to reproduced printer's style. DGG (talk) 02:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have seen a lot of these WP:DASH nominations by Koavf recently, but I have always wondered why exactly it is we have WP:DASH saying to use en dashes rather than hyphens? What exactly is wrong with them? If someone more knowledgeable on style issues can clear that up for me that would be great. Deamon138 (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's just standard rules of English: hyphens, en dashes, and em dashes are not equivalents and each has a specific use in English writing. WP:DASH sets out the standard rules fairly well. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes WP:DASH does set up the rules fairly well, but that's not what I want to understand. I want to understand WHY those rules are the way they are. You say it's just the standard rules for English, but this kind of thing has never seemed to me to be in the same league as putting commas in the right place, or apostrophes in the right place etc. Just to clarify: not criticizing the rule, I just want to understand it's reasoning. Deamon138 (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cynical old me suspects that they're in place because of a clutch of grammarians and typesetters with too much time on their hands. I have learned the hard way that some people around these parts take this stuff waaaay too seriously. 99% of the time I can't tell the difference between a hyphen and an en-dash but I've had GA and FA nominations held up because someone demanded that en-dashes be used and commas be put outside the quotation marks.
Sign your comments whoever you are, please. Deamon138 (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In simple words, hyphens join things, whilst dashes separate them; more specifically, en dashes separate items in ranges, relations, etc. and em dashes work much like parentheses. Apart from the semantics, hyphens look rather bad in ranges, because they are very small and barely visible. En dashes show much better that there is actually a distinction. Not to mention how awful spaced hyphens look—these should not be used at all. Waltham, The Duke of 04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I already said, I understand when to use en/em dashes and hyphens for the most part, but I don't get the why. The reason you have provided is, "hyphens look rather bad in ranges, because they are very small and barely visible", which I don't see personally. I think hyphens are readable and fairly visible, in fact there isn't a great difference between en dashes and hyphens. I can see hyphens perfectly fine. Deamon138 (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to explain the "why" of English grammar and usage, Deamon, is something that no mortal has yet satisfactorily achieved. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lol! Sometimes I do wonder if we were bestowed with this crazy language by the "Gods". Meh. Deamon138 (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I support all the moves (especially the one adding the missing definite article). Waltham, The Duke of [04:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)][reply]
Sign your comments please. Deamon138 (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops; my bad. (This must be a first.) Waltham, The Duke of 05:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This argument was resolved some time ago by the community, at its highest level for style, the MoS. It's a no-brainer—use the dash.
Same to you: please sign your comments. Deamon138 (talk) 00:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; these moves would reduce functionality for no other reason than a style consideration which will not impact the reader experience to any degree. Exclusive of the dash issue I have no opposition to the other proposals. Christopher Parham(talk) 05:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose use of en dash in category names. It makes categorisation and searching difficult, with little or no appreciable benefit. –Black Falcon(Talk) 16:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While the best typographic practice involves em- and en- dashes, they are not easy to produce on most keyboards. If edting in WORD, it will provide an em-dash where it is needed, but WP uses a simpler program for editing. Unless some one is willing to have a bot running all the time to do the conversions and the searching systems treat all kinds of dash as the same (which requires primary software fixes), I vote to keep to hyphens for all purposes. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boy, you guys must be running Commodore 64s or something. I press "command–hyphen" and I get an en-dash. Time for Windows to join the 21st century, I suppose. (But what else is new...) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my Commodore 64 has a rather nice character/keyboard interface : ) - jc37 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I think it's time to update NCCAT. This idea has been repeatedly opposed several times in several noms. - jc37 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.