< June 23 June 25 >

June 24

Category:Anti-paranormal books

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Books about the paranormal.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think I prefer deletion esp (ha! get it! Sorry, unintended pun) per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that there is the awfully named Category:Scientific skepticism media. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:47, 24 June 2012 (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:The Buggles albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy keep per WP:SNOW. There have been hundreds of CfD nominations that have ratified the principle that all albums need an "(artist) albums" category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:45, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless; The Buggles only released 2 albums, so what's the point? The categories New Wave albums and Synthpop albums are more usable. EditorE (talk) 21:12, 24 June 2012 (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.

Athletes by event categories

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: diffuse to "athletes" categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:50, 27 July 2012 (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:Northern League (association football) 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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. In order to match Category:Southern Football League players. GiantSnowman 12:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:25, 24 June 2012 (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:Southern League (association football) 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: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Duplicate of Category:Southern Football League players. GiantSnowman 12:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:25, 24 June 2012 (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:Cromwell, New Zealand

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 05:16, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Not part of a series. Prodontria lewisi is a bit of an odd one in the category and the others are in the Otago Region or Central Otago District category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:32, 24 June 2012 (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:Texas state highway loops and spurs

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: split. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:11, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other categories of this sort, and consistency with the lead articles, List of state highway loops in Texas and List of state highway spurs in Texas. Imzadi 1979  03:55, 24 June 2012 (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:Texas farm to market roads

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger One ping only 01:08, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other categories of this sort, and consistency with the Texas Department of Transportation's naming scheme, which is "Farm to Market Road". Imzadi 1979  03:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I propose a more accurate and inclusive title Category:Farm and Ranch to Market Roads in Texas followed by the deletion of the empty Category:Texas ranch to market roads. Fortguy (talk) 04:18, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rather separate the FMs from RMs and create Category:Ranch to Market Roads in Texas for the latter than invent the term "Farm and Ranch to Market Roads". Imzadi 1979  04:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Let me point out that many roads would need to be included in both categories due to their histories either through being renamed or having their numerical designations killed in one place only to be reborn in another. FMs and RMs, like loops and spurs, don't contemporaneously share the same numerical designations, although historical routes may conflict with current ones. Also, there is the issue of RM business routes. So far there is only one, but TxDOT has officially given it an FM business designation nonetheless. The general public is blind to this--the reassurance marker says "Business" instead of "Farm Road" or "Ranch Road"--but since business routes only get their subsection within the parent route's article, this is another source of duplicity. Fortguy (talk) 05:22, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fortguy's suggestion. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 06:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If TxDOT is not drawing a distinction between them, and we can't invent our own term (((WP:NOR]]), then we default back to matching the lead article and using the Texas-specific capitalization TxDOT uses, which is the original proposal. In short, the prohibition against original research means we can't use Fortguy's suggestion as that would be a policy violation. Imzadi 1979  06:56, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The way things stand now:
  • Category:Texas ranch to market roads is an empty category. It contains a template stating that the category should be empty and contains a redirect to the Farm Road category.
  • Ranch Roads are currently categorized in Category:Texas farm to market roads
  • Categorization has nothing to do with research, original or otherwise. It has to do with organizing an encyclopedia in a way that groups similar topics together for the convenience of the reader.
  • Categories also have nothing to do with technicalities of the distinctions that transportation authorities make. If it did, then we would need a third category for Urban Roads since Farm and Ranch Road designations are mostly deprecated in urban areas and their signage is only a legacy of their former status. Furthermore, I know of at least two roads that have both Farm and Ranch Road designations. Neither has its own article yet, and the dual designations are most likely a bureaucratic SNAFU, but nonetheless technically official. Fortguy (talk) 18:11, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong, it is original research to apply a label to a roadway, and then categorize it based on that label, that isn't backed by a reliable source. Your proposed nomenclature ("Farm and Ranch to Market Roads") does not exist in the reliable sources so it should not be used. We can't just make up a name because Fortguy says so.
  • In cases where a roadway is both a FM and a RM, just add both categories, or if titled under the FM name, add the RM category to the RM redirect. Either way, the "problem" is solved and not a big deal.
  • If you want to make a Category:Urban Roads in Texas and use it, then do so. However, no articles are under that title so it's not a priority of this nomination, which is to rename a category to follow the "<road type> in <location>" style of other highway categories and to apply the standard TxDOT capitalization to the term. Please confine your comments to that as all other objections have nothing to do with renaming the category under discussion. The RM category has been tagged for a speedy rename, and quite frankly, whether or not it is used has nothing to do with how the FM category is named. Imzadi 1979  22:28, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nom. I would keep the FM and RM separate. Dough4872 16:08, 24 June 2012 (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:Texas Recreational Roads

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. The Bushranger One ping only 01:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other categories of this sort, and consistency with the lead article, List of Recreational Roads in Texas. Imzadi 1979  03:51, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We should also discuss merging Park and Recreational Roads into the same category as there is not an especially long list of either. I personally don't have a preference regarding these two, but I'd be interested in what others have to say. Frankly, I think the Texas Task Force has way too many categories that should either be combined due to redundancy, deleted, or dropped as being outside of or at best only tangentially touching upon the scope of the project and let other more appropriate projects maintain them. Fortguy (talk) 04:45, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we can't invent names for categories. This is a category of roadway that TxDOT maintains and classifies separately from the others, so it's not appropriate to merge it with another one just to consolidate things. The remainder of your comments don't impact this discussion, which is about the category and not the project. Imzadi 1979  04:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to support Imzadi here. Park roads are a completely different system from recreational roads. Park roads are more of a primary highway system, while recreational roads are more of a secondary highway system. - Awardgive, the editor with the msitaken name. 06:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per nom. Dough4872 16:08, 24 June 2012 (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.