The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of 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 deleted. ∞Who?¿? 05:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Deletion is approved by user who created this category. -- Reinyday, 23:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC) Delete. No argument. siafu 15:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy, although I'm interested as to what the intent of quite so many colons was? Irrigation, perhaps? :) Splash 00:51, 19 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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. ∞Who?¿? 05:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as it is a subset of Category:Music videos and will then match Category:Music video directors. -- Reinyday, 23:28, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rename per nominator. -00:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splash (talk • contribs) 00:51, 18 August 2005
• Rename per nom. ∞Who?¿? 07:35, 22 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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. ∞Who?¿? 05:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Duplicate category of Category:Controversial computer and video games. Doesn't follow correct Category:Computer and video games format etc. No reason to exist especially to "save space" as SuperDude115 lists for reasoning on the page. K1Bond007 22:28, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, inherent POV. Radiant_>|< 08:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Redundant. siafu 15:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, controversial is always a ... controversial word, and "comp" is no good either. -Splash 00:51, 19 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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. ∞Who?¿? 05:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably created to house Ikara (missile)—not even the Soviet Union has its own ASW category. Easily listified: the MU90 Impact, Mark 46, and Mark 48 torpedoes and the Hedgehog (weapon) would belong, and if you want to be technical, the Mark 11 (launcher) and Mark 32 Surface Vessel Torpedo Tubes. But they're all imports. - choster 22:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - of Australia suggests made by Australia. Ergo, this would be an empty category. -- BD2412 ^talk 03:34, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Radiant_>|< 08:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per BDAdbramson. siafu 15:19, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even if there was a missle that could properly go in here, it would be overcategorization. -Splash 00:51, 19 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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 Deleted prior. ∞Who?¿? 05:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently erroneously created by someone seeking Category:User fr; empty. Candidate for speedy I believe. - choster 21:37, 16 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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. ∞Who?¿? 05:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

→ Category:Six Feet Under (television)

Seems a bit ambiguous with the current title. ∞Who?¿? 19:45, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, I suppose this could be seen as ambiguous, but I'm not so sure it matters in this specific case. What else would someone really put in this category? Someone that is dead? That seems a little.. silly. That said, it doesn't really matter to me and perhaps is for the best. K1Bond007 20:18, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP, I don't think that (unlike an article) this needs to have the TV proviso on it, as K1Bond007 observes. 132.205.94.174 22:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it will only get linked to from Six Feet Under articles. -- Reinyday, 22:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until and unless there is something else called Six Feet Under requiring a cat. Radiant_>|< 08:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. No need to disambiguate, though I'm surprised that there are actually enough articles to have a show cat when we've deleted many in the past. siafu 15:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but reluctantly. I suspect those articles all need trimming and merging at which point the cat could be done away with. -Splash 00:51, 19 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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 already being worked on --Kbdank71 13:10, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this was previously nominated (and voted) to be split into 'style' and 'howto'. Does anybody know what has happened to that? Radiant_>|< 14:59, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I think Beland was working on it. --Kbdank71 18:57, 16 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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/rename to "Streets and roads" --Kbdank71 13:35, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a redirect to Category:Roads, but for some reason was showing up as a subcategory of "Roads", so creating a loop. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That would be because it read "Category:Roads" rather than ":Category:Roads". A {{categoryredirect}} would be useful. Radiant_>|< 14:12, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
• We definitely should distinguish between streets and roads, as they serve very different purposes and are conceptually quite different. Admittedly, I didn't understand the distinction when I used to live in the country, but in an urban setting there is a big, big difference, and it wouldn't ever occur to you to call the street a road, or the road a street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP 66.173.44.202 (talk • contribs) 23:50, 16 August 2005
  • I live in an urban area and I have no idea what the difference would be. I'd assume that many people consider them synonyms, so if we were to have two cats this would cause confusion and miscatting. Radiant_>|< 08:52, August 17, 2005 (UTC)
    • Nah... you ever heard of a "road" performer or a "road" artist? Ever picked up a newspaper at the "road" corner? Ever hear a juicy rumor on the "road" or avoid a nasty fight with your "road" smarts? There is a reason for the difference in terminology--the same reason you'll hit the road, not the street, for a long journey; the same reason bling hits the streets, not the roads. I'll rewrite the Street article to give a better idea of the difference, but what's already there summarizes it pretty well. Also see [1] and [2]. Basically, calling a street a "road" is like calling Chianti beer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP 66.173.44.202 (talk • contribs) 09:17, 17 August 2005
      • Well, no; the intension may be different (and it varies from place to place), but the extension is the same; that is, whatever is a street is a road, and whatever is a road is a street. That "street" is appropriate in certain phrases is irrelevant; the same case could be made in reverse (a motorist attacking another in Regent Street is suffering from road rage, not street rage, and probably because he's a road hog, not a street hog; the police set up roadblocks not streetblocks in the streets of London recently; people measure road traffic on busy streets, not street traffic; Watling Street is a Roman road; city streets are made with road metal, etc., etc.). The change recently made to the category (which has been hurriedly poulated) is also odd, in that it refers to "mere roads or thoroughfares", as if they were somehow inferior to streets. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:38, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, exactly. Losing your temper while driving is called road rage, regardless of whether you're on a road, a street, or a grassy knoll, because driving is a phenomenon of the road. The road in road rage conveys that it's something that happens behind the wheel of a car, not that it always has to happen on a road. Street rage, if such a term were to exist, would be an assault by somebody on foot. Same goes for the other road terms (roadblock, road hog, road traffic, Roman road, road metal)--they all describe aspects of driving and concepts having to do with travel, and are therefore only tangentially relevant to everything that makes a street a street. We could get away with renaming the category something more encompassing like "Roads, streets, and ways." — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP 66.173.44.202 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 17 August 2005
• Merge with Category:Roads, though once that's done we might visit a rename to Category:Streets and roads or streets, roads, and thoroughfares, or something. siafu 15:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming the category to "Thoroughfares" would work. I still think it would be terribly improper to call, say, Ludlow Street, Manhattan a "road." No one would do that in casual writing or speech. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP 66.173.44.202 (talk • contribs) 16:38, 17 August 2005
    • "Thoroughfares" Would exclude dead-end streets. --SPUI (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • An identical discussion to this turned up when we were discussing "Road stubs" and/or "Street stubs" at WP:WSS. What is called a street in some countries is called a road in others and vice versa. As for Ludlow Street, I don't get your point. Wilshire Boulevard is a road, and so is Pennsylvania Avenue. So why not Ludlow Street - is there something non-roadlike about it (is it pedestrian-only, for instance?). And yes, you can pick up newspapers from the box at the corner of the road. No problem. One of the main roads in this city (or main streets, if you prefer) might give you an indication of howw different these two terms are: Prince Albert Road becomes King Edward Street half-way along its length at the boundary between two former boroughs. If there's a need to differentiate between roads and streets, then you'll also need separate categories for Lanes, Avenues, Drives, Boulevards and all other names for these to all intents and purposes identical things. Thoroughfares would be a fair compromise, I'd say. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "What is called a street in some countries is called a road in others" -- is that actually true? Having lived in London, Hong Kong, Accra (for a couple months), and Kinshasa, I know English idiom in these cultures, at least, treats the concepts of "street" and "road" the same way we do in the U.S. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP 66.173.44.202 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 18 August 2005
    • Please recognize that a street doesn't have to be named "Such-and-such Street." Is this the source of confusion here? Abbey Road is more streetlike than roadlike. Sunset Blvd, Drury Lane, and Seventh Avenue are variously named thoroughfares that behave as streets, in function as much as in the popular mind. Conversely, there might be a hundred-mile swath of asphalt through Siberia called "Middle of Nowhere Street," for all I know, but it won't be a street except along those portions meeting the criteria explained in the article Street. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP 66.173.44.202 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 18 August 2005
      • Oh certainly - Watling Street in the UK is a perfect example of what you mean for part of its length. The problem is that the boundary between road and street is fuzzy. Certainly there are differences - roads then to link groups of streets. Primary routes that travel through cities and link with other places are generally termed roads; main shopping areas and the like have streets, arterial routes between suburbs are roads - even when they are urban along their entire length, and suburban thoroughfares and culs-de-sacs containing houses are streets. But the point remain - when does a road become a street? Wilshire Boulevard links several different parts of LA, so according to the "arterial" definition, is a road not a street. Yet it is quite clearly a street. The same reason is why many of the main "streets" in London are called roads - Edgware Road links different suburbs, as does Bayswater Road. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This fuss over terminology might seem a bit silly, but the distinction between the two concepts--road and street--is actually crucial in architecture and city planning, as well as disciplines like anthropology and sociology as they relate to urban studies. Streets play a well-defined role in the built environment, and roads quite another. A category called "Roads" doesn't automatically encompass all streets, and thoroughfares that don't behave like roads (almost all of Manhattan's streets, for instance) have no business being in that category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IP 66.173.44.202 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 18 August 2005
      • Well, yes it does. A street is simply a type of road. All of Manhattan's streets are roads - they're a specific type of road called a street. An analogy would be saying that Kangaroos don't belong in Category:Mammals because they behave unlike a lot of other mammals. Grutness...wha? 00:54, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to disagree. Many streets aren't roads at all, especially among the best-known, busiest, and most important. One is Wall Street, where a vibrant street life is unhindered, perhaps even helped, by the same concrete barricades that completely obstruct its use as a road. Likewise are road vehicles barred from Carnaby Street in London, and here too, incidentally, abandoning the role of a road frees it to thrive as a street. Older cities are teeming with streets like these (see List of carfree places). Some even reserve entire sections of downtown for pedestrian-only traffic, ensuring that no street within will ever be mistaken for a road. In a more subjective vein, alleys, arcades, and side streets can be construed as streets but usually not roads, and that's not even including streets like Tokyo's Takeshita-dori which are technically open to vehicular traffic, but so crowded with people and street furniture it's a real stretch to call them "roads" by anyone's definition. So, yeah--not all streets are roads, not all roads are streets, and we'll need to do something about the streets that don't belong in a category named "Roads." IP 66.173.44.202 09:50, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, I take your point. But with so much overlap having two completely separate categories won't work well. Why not simply remane Category:Roads to Category:Roads and Streets (or Category:Streets and Roads)? Grutness...wha? 01:21, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, I agree. Let's rename the category "Streets and Roads" and call it a day. We might even consider adding "Pedestrian streets" as a category sometime later, but I'm not sure that's necessary right now. Thoughts? IP 66.173.44.202 08:43, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, how about "Streets, roads, and motorways"? Or is that getting too clumsy? Will "Streets and roads" be assumed to include M1 motorway and I-95? In any case, one thing is certain: roads belong with highways before they belong with streets. If roads and highways are categorized separately, so should be streets and roads. IP 66.173.44.202 08:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right. From browsing Category:Roads, it looks like it already includes a lot of roads together with highways/motorways, as well as streets. One of the following needs to be done:

1. add all the streets to a "Street" category, pulling them out of "Roads" where appropriate (e.g. Carnaby Street)
2. just include everything in a category (re)named "Streets and roads"
3. just include everything in a category (re)named "Streets, roads, and highways".

I'm of the opinion that "roads" includes highways, for what it's worth, so I'm about evenly torn between (1) and (2). But I'm tired, and might not be thinking straight. IP 66.173.44.202 09:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go with the second option, and make Category:Highways and motorways a subcategory of it. That should make it clear that highways are simply a specific type of road, yet keep them clear of the rest of the items in the category. Grutness...wha? 06:48, 22 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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 13:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category relates to the Prairie Provinces of Canada (Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba). It no longer serves a purpose as it has now been subdivided into Category:Aboriginal peoples in Alberta, Category:Aboriginal peoples in Saskatchewan, and Category:Aboriginal peoples in Manitoba. Kurieeto 02:30, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Obviously. Luigizanasi 02:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nandesuka 12:19, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone makes a convincing argument for this being essential for category structure. siafu 15:27, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mindmatrix 21:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but observe that it will probably be recreated in time; it should be merged on sight unless there is an overarching reorganization of the relevant category schema. -Splash 00:51, 19 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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 --Kbdank71 13:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The term "Canadian Arctic" refers to either areas north of the Arctic Circle, or north of the treeline in Canada. Either definitions are not precise and include parts of Quebec and Labrador, when the intent is only to encompass the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. "Canadian Territories" specifically refers to these territories. Kurieeto 01:45, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Rename. User:Kurieeto is correct. Luigizanasi 02:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename No argument. siafu 15:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Mindmatrix 21:32, 18 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to correctify. -Splash 00:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Whoa — Waitaminute; the category is useful, so why not include the First Peoples bands who also live in Nunavik and Labrador? Limiting the category to the three territories is kind of arbitrary. We should expand the scope of the categroy to include the people who live in the entire environmental 'region', and not just a portion of it. Swingbeaver 09h11 August 19 2005 (GMT -5h00)
  • What is the Arctic? North of the Arctic Circle? In which case most of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories are not in it, and neither are Nunatsiavut (in Labrador) and Nunavik (in Quebec). Or is it the July 10 degree Celsius isotherm or treeline? This would include Nunavik and parts of Labrador, but exclude most of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. In any case, First Nations peoples live in the subarctic taiga, but not in the Arctic tundra so there would hardly be anyone there other than than the Inuit and Inuvialuit. These peoples and related articles are already in the Category:Inuit. The rest of the set of categories about aboriginal peoples is split up by province and or region, so including Nunavik and Nunatsiavut in the Arctic category would make an already confusing classification even worse.Luigizanasi 15:06, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename ∞Who?¿? 07:37, 22 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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 --Kbdank71 13:19, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be renamed Category:Commodore VIC-20 games, see Commodore VIC-20. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

• Rename both as nominator. -Splash 00:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. ∞Who?¿? 07:39, 22 August 2005 (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 of the proposed deletion of 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 --Kbdank71 13:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be renamed Category:Commodore VIC-20 software, see Commodore VIC-20. ~ Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:28, 2005 August 16 (UTC)

• Rename both. No argument. siafu 00:33, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename them both. Hall Monitor 23:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both as nominator. -Splash 00:51, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. ∞Who?¿? 07:39, 22 August 2005 (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.