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: No Consensus to rename - jc37 01:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cars back to Category:Automobiles

Nominator's rationale: The closed on 22 Oct had insufficient related notification and was approved (near unanimously) by just four editors [[1]]. It does not appear that the name change was advertised to any of the impacted articles/projects. There is a discussion at Project Automobiles where editors have raised concern regarding the change [[2]]. I would suggest that this change needs wider community input based on the project Automobile replies. I would suggest that this change should be publicized on at least a few relevant project pages/automotive topic talk pages. The change in project was based in part on a change in article name from Automobile to Car. Car's most prominent project pages are Project Automobile and Project WikiProject Transport. Neither were notified. There is a discussion at Project Automobiles where editors have raised concern regarding the change [[3]]. I would suggest that this change needs wider community input based on the project Automobile replies. I would suggest that this change should be publicized on at least a few relevant project pages/automotive topic talk pages.

List of notifications: (ping involved editors, @Crouch, Swale:, @Fayenatic london:, @Marcocapelle:, @RGloucester:, closer:@Good Olfactory:) At this point I'm objecting to the previous change based on procedural grounds due to lack of community involvement. Springee (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as Cars) The article was renamed over 4 years ago to Car, see Talk:Car/Naming. The category move would have been uncontroversial if it wasn't for it being contested shortly after the move and recently (at CFDS) due to that and the new name being more ambiguous. And to reply to the notification, that ideally should have been done, but as the article was already at Car anyway, I can't see that being too important and wouldn't have it come up on article alerts anyway. Also Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles should be renamed to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cars, among other articles (apart from presumably cases where ENGVAR would favour automobile). Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per WP:EPON and WP:TOPICCAT, it is standard for the relevant category and main article to have the same. If car is moved back to automobile, that'd be a different story, but so far that hasn't happened. This is an issue for a requested move at Talk:Car, not a categorisation problem. A debate about the merits of the names 'car' and 'automobile' doesn't belong at CFD, though I'd happily point out that all of the reasons why automobile was moved to car also apply to the category name. All of the correct procedures were followed in the previous nomination, and there is no obligation to notify WikiProjects. RGloucester — ☎ 20:24, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Category:Automobiles. Perfect consistency and conformity are neither required nor desirable. WP:EPON doesn't say the category and main article must have the same title. It only provides categorization guidelines, not naming guidelines. WP:TOPICCAT say topic categories usually share a name. Which clearly means it is acceptable for them to sometimes not share a name. The relative informality of Car makes sense for the article title, although Automobile would be fine too. As a category name, Automobiles has a level of formality and specificity that helps readers feel confident they know what the category is all about. Cars is the name of an extremely well known film, for example. The article Car doesn't have this problem because it's singular. Category names like Category:Car classifications‎ or Category:Car crime are not a problem, because the one thing we know for sure is that car and automobile can be used interchangeably, and Category:Automobile classifications‎ is long and unwieldy. It's fortunate we have this linguistic flexibility here, and we should take advantage of it. I don't think keeping Category:Cars is the end of the world, it's acceptable, but Category:Automobiles is better, in this particular case.

  Moving this without making a good faith effort to attract WikiProject Automobiles participants was, well, Vogon in bureaucratic obstinacy: "For heaven's sake mankind, it's only four light years away you know. If you can't be bothered to take an interest in local affairs, that's your own lookout. Energize the demolition beam. I don't know, apathetic bloody planet, I've no sympathy at all." --Dennis Bratland (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. 'Formality' is not a criteria that any Wikipedia policy or guidelines supports considering in our titling of articles or categories, nor is there any evidence that 'car' is an 'informal' term. We use common names, and you know that. Furthermore, 'automobile' is dialect-restricted (see also OED, def 2), and hence more confusing for a large part of the English-speaking world, who will see it as a foreign term that is rarely used. That's why the article was moved to "car" in the first place...WP:COMMONALITY says to use terms that are common to all varieties of English when possible. In this specific case, it makes even more sense than in many other cases, because 'car' is 100% dominant in all parts of world when referring to this subject, even in North America. Furthermore, the primary topic of the word 'car' is clearly 'motor car' or 'automobile'. The suggestion that a film about 'cars' would somehow confound people's understanding of the subject is laughable. While it is true that a category can deviate from its parent article, no good reason has been provided for why it should deviate. RGloucester — ☎ 21:28, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I’m always reading arguments that rest on the existence of this mythical non-US English speaker so provincial and isolated that any word not heard in their remote hamlet before Chaucer is an “Americanism” that leaves them flummoxed. I’ve never spied one in the wild. If one did exist, their limited exposure to other varieties of English would depend on having no Internet access. Hence no Wikipedia access. There is simple English Wikipedia for those whose versatility really is below the presumed reading skill of our target readers. I think both words, car and automobile, are equally useful, and the small differences in degree of formality are part of what makes me lean to one or the other.

It has nothing to do with provincialism...according to our policies and guidelines, where there are shared terms between different varieties of English, we prefer them to dialect-restricted terms...because this is an international encylopaedia. Whether you like it or not, 'automobile' is an Americanism...it's not a word commonly used outside North America. Reliable sources back that reality. It may well be known as either an archaic variant or as an Americanism, but the idea that the reader will more readily know what the category is about if it is titled 'automobile' falls flat, because for those of us who are speakers of non-American varieties of English, the term is unnatural, and requires mental translation before processing...whereas, on the other hand, we use the word 'car' at every moment in our daily lives, and instantly know what it refers to. And indeed, I'd say the same is true for most Americans, who, by and large, use 'car', and not 'automobile'. As a Briton who has lived in America for some years, I am confident in that fact. The word 'automobile' might be familiar to you, and indeed, you're apparently a specialist in that field, but that doesn't mean everyone else understands or uses the word. Wikipedia is written for a generalist and international audience...not for 'automobile' enthusiasts. As for 'formality', again, your position is not backed by policy, which is what matters...and, furthermore, 'car' is not listed as an informal register variant in any dictionary (see above). It is simply a normal term, one we all use on a daily basis...the archetypical example of a 'common name'. RGloucester — ☎ 00:25, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not provincialism. Condescension. You take non-US English speakers for provincial rubes. Have you searched the word 'automobile' at bbc.co.uk? Or checked the Ngram Viewer? Automobile ranks higher than 'helicopter' and 'lorry' in UK English. Americans by and large, use 'car', and not 'automobile'? Really? You know we have a magazine called Automobile? Chuck Berry sang "Riding along in my automobile" in "No Particular Place to Go" and no Americans (or UKans, or Australians, or anyone) scratched their heads wondering what on Earth contraption Mr. Berry could be riding along in. ZZ Top's "She Loves My Automobile" similarly didn't crash head on into a language barrier. Neither did Chris Brown's "Pills And Automobiles" or Ry Cooder's "Crazy 'Bout an Automobile", or Patsy Cline's "I Love You Honey". Etc etc. "You're apparently a specialist in that field"? Really? Like I said, condescension.

Car is fine. Cars is fine. You're not wrong or anything. But you're crazy if you think 'automobile' is somehow drastically worse, or even verboten. 'Automobile' is more or less the same as 'car'. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not taking anyone for a 'rube'...I'm just telling you what our policies and guidelines say, and they make clear why 'automobile' is not a suitable article or category name. No one said that no one has ever used 'automobile' in America...all that I said was that car is much more frequently used, which is plainly true. I'm sorry that I'm not familiar with your ancient and vulgar American cultural references, but I'm not certain how they are relevant here. Furthermore, your ngram lacks context. First of all, the British ngram includes all British reprints of American publications...and furthermore, if you add 'car' to the ngram, you'll see how minuscule its use actually is by comparison. In any case, such is original research. The OED, which is regarded as the most definitive catalogue of English usage the world over, is quite clear that 'automobile' is an Americanism...and you have neither grounds nor station to challenge that. Automobile is the same as car, except for that fact that its usage is limited largely to North America...and so, per WP:COMMONALITY, we favour the term that is used everywhere, which is also the common name everywhere, and that name is definitively 'car'. RGloucester — ☎ 01:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You already made clear what it is we disagree with one another about. You don't need to keep repeating it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:01, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RGloucester has even said that they have lived in America and a proposal they made has been been accused of being US biast. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, so far I have not seen any strong arguments why it is desirable to have a different name for the category than for the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I've struck my vote and comment based on the discussion below. It seems like e.g. SUVs may or may not belong to cars. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support restoration. First, I think this discussion needs to be viewed in context of an improper name change. It should require consensus to keep "Car" since this change was made with only four supporting editors and no notification.

Dennis has hit on the language issues but I have a few additional concerns. "Automobile" as a term nicely covers things like light duty pickups. The Pickup Truck and Ford F-series articles are members of protect Automobile but wouldn't make sense as a member of project "Car". The US market at least has long seen the the market as comprising of cars and trucks, all automobiles. Unless the intent is to start excluding vehicles like the Ford F-series (the best selling nameplate) from Project: Automobile (to be renamed cars?) this is a bad move.

An argument is made about the more common user of the word "car" vs "automobile". Yes, I get the common name argument but that didn't really apply here. "Automobile" is the common name in cases like this. It's not like people are confused by the more formal "automobile" vs the more common yet often carelessly used "car". This also ignores that "car" as a term predates the common automobile while "automobile" is a specific term created for it.

An argument is made that all of this derives from the "car" article, formerly and not without controversy the "automobile" article. Who designated that article to be the one to name the category? Per US English I would expect the scope of that article to talk about the range of vehicles we (and to some extent the EPA) call cars. I would not expect it to cover trucks and by extension SUVs nor topics such as emissions from passenger vehicles etc. "Car" and "Automobile" are overlapping but not wholly equal items. The "car" article may change but that doesn't mean "automobile museum" should change to "car museum". When editors applied the category name/description to an article can we assume they feel the two are interchangeable? Are we changing their intention by changing the category name? Springee (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing improper about the CFD held and closed per procedure. You are completely wrong about the definition of 'automobile', and this was dealt with in the requsested move discussion four years ago. All major dictionaries, British and American, define 'automobile' as equivalent to a car. Collins dictionary, for instance, says "An automobile is a car". Oxford says an automobile is "A car". Oxford American says "A road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor and able to carry a small number of people", and that 'car' is a synonym of 'automobile'. If we consult the proper OED, the most definitive dictionary of the English language, the definition is even more clear: "A road vehicle powered by a motor (usually an internal combustion engine), esp. one designed to carry a driver and a small number of passengers; a car". See also American Heritage and Webster. You don't get to change the definition of 'automobile' to suit your needs...we follow reliable sources on Wikipedia. Automobile and car are equivalent...synonyms. There is no difference in scope, which is why the article car's contents did not change upon the page move from automobile. Even if by some strange stretch of the imagination there was a difference, a broader category already exists at Category:Motor vehicles, so that would not be an issue anyway, as this category has always dealt with cars, not 'trucks' or anything else, which are clearly not 'automobiles'. Furthermore, you once again have failed to recognise that "automobile" is an Americanism, not used elsewhere, which is what reliable source say, and that per WP:COMMONALITY, we should use terms common to all varieties of English, if possible. Automobile is not the formal term for 'cars' outside the North America, so your argument in that regard is bunk. In any case, formality is not a criteria for selecting category names. By the way, in Britain, 'motor car' is used for the formal purpose. All in all, I see a lot of misinformation, and no backing by reliable sources or Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Enough is enough. RGloucester — ☎ 04:44, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken - please read the sources you quoted - the term used is not car it is motor car and that is different. NealeFamily (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a plain lie...I provided links below. Grasping at straws, I guess. RGloucester — ☎ 04:49, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should consider MOS:RETAIN. You are concerned about a difference between the UK and US terms but RETAIN says in cases where things such as spelling are different but understood we stock with what was there first. This BTW would also apply to the Car article as the scope of content is clear and the article spent 11 years as Automobile before your post to change it. Perhaps that article title should also be reconsidered. Springee (talk) 10:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RETAIN doesn't apply when there is a common term that all variants use = see WP:COMMONALITY. Unless, you're arguing that 'car' is not used in America? Regardless, this is the wrong place for that argument. RGloucester — ☎ 17:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support restoration as the term automobile is more consistent with terminology used other encyclopedia's and dictionary's - for example Encyclopaedia Britannica redirects you from the term Car to Autombobile. The Oxford dictionary describes a car as a wheel vehicle, whereas an automobile is described as a motor car and Chambers Dictionary also follows a similar line. If the term car is going to be used it must be prefaced with the word motor, otherwise it is an inaccurate descriptor. Merriam-Websters dictionary also takes the same line. As these cover both British and American usage and they easily meet the requirements of WP:RS it is logical to change the category back to automobile. See MOS:IDENTITY NealeFamily (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, the OED entry for car defines 'car' as 'motor car, and motor car as an automobile: "A road vehicle powered by a motor (usually an internal combustion engine), designed to carry a driver and a small number of passengers, and usually having two front and two rear wheels, esp. for private, commercial, or leisure use; an automobile". Chambers says 'automobile' is a North American word for 'motor car', and if you then look up 'motor car', it says a 'motor car' is a 'car'. Please don't misrepresent sources. MOS:IDENTITY??? Is this a BIOGRAPHY??? RGloucester — ☎ 04:48, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Motor car is not the same as Car - unless your version of Oxford is different to mine - an automobile is described as a motor car. Car is just plain sloppy english. NealeFamily (talk) 04:52, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please click the links...there is only one version of the OED online. RGloucester — ☎ 04:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• This debate is absurd, and may well drive me to madness. Forgive me in advance. In the meantime, this is the wrong place for this discussion...if a change is a desired, an RM should be filed. RGloucester — ☎ 04:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you feel that way RGlouceter but just to finish off this part - ::::: MOS:IDENTITY also applies to group terminology - automobile describes at a group, albeit not human. As to Oxford - the on line version also refers to a car as being among other things the passenger compartment or cage of an elevator or lift among a lot of other things that are not related to automobiles, which tends to make it not very useful as a descriptor for a category or an introduction to motor cars and that is why there is such an uproar. NealeFamily (talk) 05:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It does give over senses of the word, but also clearly states that the 'usual sense' is 'motor cars'...so, in other words, that's a plain folderol. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I got to the office and then proclaimed "I left my briefcase in the car", the natural thought everybody will have is that I left it in my automobile/motor car. The use of "car" to mean a train/tram carriage or an elevator cabin only applies when the context is specifically about trains, trams or elevators. As an Australian we naturally say "car" in conversation. We also understand "automobile" but think that you're using 3 times the number of syllables you really need or are being formal. Reading both American and British car magazines, listening to both American and British TV/movies and being in projects with both American and European car companies (I used to design ECU's), it seems to be a common thing to reserve "automobile" for formal things. I don't think our readers are being confused by either term. We are just arguing over whether we want the common name or the formal name. Personally, I don't care either way.  Stepho  talk  00:15, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that's not true...the formal term for 'car' in British English is 'motor car'. That's the term used in all traffic law, &c. We do not use automobile as a formal term, or as any term. Automobile is an Americanism...understood, yes, but not used. The OED confirms this. However, that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about categorisation...not about the title of the article. RGloucester — ☎ 02:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Procedural oppose, this is not to right place to discuss whether car or automobile is preferable in general. The right place for that is at the talk page of the car article. This place is just for assessing whether or not it is preferable to have the category name different from the article name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment, either cars and automobiles are the same and there should be one article and one category of the same name, or cars and automobiles are different and there should be two articles and two categories. In any case this needs to be settled in article space first. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Motor vehicles and the article motor vehicle already exist, and have done. RGloucester — ☎ 17:32, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. -->Typ932 ^T·C 05:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - WP:DRV is the correct venue. In any case it is the name of the article car that should be disputed. (The article has been at car since 2014, via an RM. It is ridiculous to protest about this 4 years later.) Oculi (talk) 12:41, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Car dictate the name of this category? Springee (talk) 12:56, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TOPICCAT, why would we use a different name, other than specific category NC such as pluralization (which this already has) and extra disambiguation, which is the only thing I can think of. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its not ridiculous, as this one article concerns all categories aswell, they started to renamed automobile categories according to this one article, so it reallyt doesnt matter if 4 year old or not, this is actual happening now -->Typ932 ^T·C 13:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is not unreasonable to expect members of WP:WikiProject Automobiles to be watching automobile or car or Category:Automobiles or WP:WikiProject Automobiles/Article alerts (which noted the original cfd on 11 Oct 18). Oculi (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been watching the project Automobile page for a few years now. I never saw the alert since I'm not listed as a member of project Automobile. Clearly others who are impacted were also blindsided. Springee (talk) 15:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Automobile is a clear term, while "car" also applies to elevators, trams, and railroad cars. Dimadick (talk) 15:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Automobile' is not a clear term to anyone outside of North America, as above...the primary topic of the word car is 'car', which is why the article is at car, unless you plan to move the article? RGloucester — ☎ 17:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not bludgeon the process by re-posting that statement on every !vote. We heard you the first time. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will not stop in the face of untruths and manipulations. As soon as people start behaving reasonably, I'll stop. Kindly do not continue your advocacy. RGloucester — ☎ 17:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think as pointed out you need to use RM, not CFD, this appears to mainly be turning into rehashing the RM discussion. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:34, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this the correct forum to change the category to "car" but not the correct to reverse that change? Anyway, at this point I think it's clear there isn't consensus. Absent some other factor I'll push to have the previous decision reversed per the reasons I previously stated. There lack of consensus means restore the previous stable state. Springee (talk) 18:04, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was moving to match the article, this proposal will move it away again. Just like if the article was at Automobile, this would probably be the wrong place to change it to Category:Cars. As noted the only difference appears to be the ambiguity (similar to Perth and Plymouth) and the argument made by Dimadick that it could refer to other types of vehicles. If the article is moved back, this would be moot and would be the wrong place to try and get Cars. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong neutral - Logically, the categories should match the main article regardless of what the title is. All else being equal, I wouldn't support deviating from that without good reason.

However, the issue is this: in common usage (yes, common usage, not a dictionary, so there is no need to condescendingly quote policy at me), the words are not recognized equivalently. In the UK, as I understand it, "car" refers to most passenger vehicles in general, trucks excepted. In the US, "car" is typically reserved for sedans, coupes, wagons, convertibles, and sometimes crossovers - it is generally not understood to encompass vans, trucks, and truck-based SUVs. Yet "automobile" is understood in the US to cover all passenger cars and light trucks, while it is apparently not understood at all in the UK.

Where this issue becomes a problem is that vans, light trucks, and SUVs are now categorized as "cars", something that most North American readers would find unusual, and something that the proponents of using the term "car" apparently consider incorrect, despite them being encompassed by the endlessly-linked dictionary definitions of both terms. Per some comments made at WikiProject Automobiles, this category change is looking like a back-door means of expunging vans, light trucks, and SUVs without discussion; if that is the case, that is not okay, and probably part of the reason why this is being so strongly debated as a result of the categories changing. Again, the categorization would, in my opinion, merely look odd to most North American readers so I don't particularly feel strongly about the naming itself; but the fact that even certain proponents of using the term "car" ignore their cited definition of the word in order to exclude certain vehicles from it gives me pause, as using that exclusion to affect the present state relating to categorization/content would be a significant change. --Sable232 (talk) 21:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a concern I can at least understand, but it is unfortunately misguided. There already exists a broad category at Category:Motor vehicles, which contains the subcategories Category:Vans and Category:Trucks. Please also see Category:Commercial vehicles. Trucks, vans, &c. were never categorised in former Category:Automobiles. The often mentioned pick-up trucks, for instance, have never been in the automobile category: Category:Pickup trucks. These have always had their own categories, and still do. Some might have been mis-categorised, but this can be fixed. Both the former article automobile and the category Category:Automobiles have always been about 'cars', not about anything else. The scope of both the article and the category did not change upon their moving to 'car'. As for why, it's because 'an automobile is a car' in both American and British English, per all reliable sources above...and dictionaries do indeed catalogue common usage. RGloucester — ☎ 21:55, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Automobile: A road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine or electric motor and able to carry a small number of people." - from the Oxford English Dictionary as you have previously cited.

This does not exclude what you claim it to exclude. A quick check of Category:1960s cars finds an assortment of vans, pickups, and SUVs - likely because, formerly being called "1960s automobiles", it covered them per the recognition of the average North American Wikipedia reader and by extension the average North American Wikipedia editor. Your assertion that they have never been in an automobile category is incorrect. Regardless of your view, this is the current status quo and it cannot change without discussion (albeit preferably not in this venue). --Sable232 (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What have I said it excludes? I simply said it excludes trucks, which is true, and I don't think you'd deny that. Please also note that you excluded the second part of that definition, which says ";a car" (def 2). Car and automobile are the same thing...it's quite clear. You are not in a position to determine what the average North American reader's recognition is. In any case, like I said, if someone accidentally put a van in the automobile category, instead of the vans category, that can be fixed...but it doesn't imply anything other than a mis-categorisation, and is not a basis for some sort of self-created difference between car and automobile that doesn't exist. Vans have never been categorised in the automobile category...they have been in Category:Vans, a sub-category of Category:Motor vehicles, and that is the status quo. RGloucester — ☎ 22:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The simple fact is it's problematic to change the name given that at least in American English the terms are only semi-interchangeable. Articles have have rightly been part of category automobiles (not to mention projects such as Project Automobile) suddenly become incorrect. If this name change is nothing more then it shouldn't, in effect break links. That brings up a second point, if either name works outside of North America but "Car" doesn't work correctly inside of North America then why change it? Springee (talk) 01:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They are completely interchangeable in North America, per reliable sources. Your own personal feelings about how automobile should be defined do not change how it is defined in reliable sources. American and British reliable sources define 'automobiles' as 'cars', meaning they are completely interchangeable. Vans should never have been in the automobiles category...they should've been in the vans category, which should be pretty obvious. And, by and large, they are in that category. The project's scope is irrelevant, and will not change by changing the category name. 'Automobile' doesn't work outside North America because it is not used outside North America, and has a low level of recognisability there, again per reliable sources. RGloucester — ☎ 02:45, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vans, trucks and SUVs are all automobiles, so yes, they should be in the automobile catagory. Funny, the earlier version of Automobile included them. Since you want to tie this category to the Car article (not that it needs to be per WP:category) it's clear the Automobile article did cover material about vans and light trucks. Given the protests when that rename was made perhaps that one should also be revisited. Regardless, per CONSENSUS it appears there was never a consensus for this name change. Springee (talk) 03:02, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trucks are most definitely not automobiles. No dictionary supports that definition...automobiles are for passenger transport, and cary a small number of people...trucks, which are meant to move goods or freight (definition 1b), are by definition not included. You're making stuff up. Luckily, consensus doesn't mean that we take a vote...it's based on our adherence to policies and guidelines, and also RS...so far you have ignored these and continue to push your own WP:POV. Automobile's contents did not change upon the move, so that's nonsense. RGloucester — ☎ 03:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now, I've seen you've resorted to selective WP:VOTESTACKING (1, 2)..are you kidding me? RGloucester — ☎ 03:54, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notifying previously involved editors is not votestacking. In fact it is specifically allowed. You didn't pretest when I contacted the editors involved in the last closing. Dennis was involved with you in one of your previous discussions of the topic. Any and all previous involved editors should be notified. Springee (talk) 04:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You only notified two people from all the past discussions...two people who opposed. That's votestacking. Either notify all or none. Otherwise, let's take a trip to AN/I. RGloucester — ☎ 04:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes what about notifying the nom and closer of the 2014 RM? Crouch, Swale (talk) 08:34, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the link I have to the four year old discussion. [[4]] RGloucester was the nominator, Dennis and RG discussed. If someone else should have been notified please ping them. Springee (talk) 09:39, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The burden is on YOU to ping them, as you selectively notified 2 editors, instead of everyone that has participated in the past discussions. RGloucester — ☎ 14:56, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is the last time I will reply to this nonsense. Who did I fail to notify? Springee (talk) 16:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone who participated in the requested move discussion to move the article to car? RGloucester — ☎ 17:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single statement in the definition of "automobile" that excludes a van, truck, or SUV. None. In North America, pickups carry between 2 and 6 passengers are are used for passenger transport at least as often as for cargo so your assertion is patently false. Same goes for an SUV or passenger van.

Your continued bludgeoning of the point, your accusations of "untruths and manipulations" and votestacking are bordering on incivility; your attempt to intimidate other editors into abandoning the discussion by threatening to go to AN/I is beyond the pale. This is looking less and less like a content disagreement on your part and more like POV-pushing. The fact that there is this much disagreement from North American editors on your interpretation of the word "automobile" all but proves that your baseless claim about the American recognition of the term is incorrect - you would do well to stop harassing other editors by repeating that statement after every comment made by someone who disagrees with you. --Sable232 (talk) 15:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said SUVs were not automobiles. They meet the definition of both 'car' and 'automobile'. They are not primarily for goods transport, and so are clearly not trucks, but, of course, they truly lie somewhere in-between as a hybrid, which we all know. I never said pick-ups were not automobiles or cars. They very well are, again, lying somewhere in the grey area between cars and trucks...though, it is also true that they are legally classified as light trucks, not as automobiles. In any case, what I said is that they had their own category, Category:Pickup trucks, and so should be in that category by virtue of the fact that they are pickup trucks, rather than in any other category for any other reason. That's all I said. Regular trucks are clearly not automobiles...see the definitions above, because they are not for passenger transport. Anyway, 'disagreement' from a cabal of editors canvassed from WikiProject 'Automobiles' is irrelevant. We do not seek agreement here, we seek adherence to policies, guidelines, and RS. We do not base encyclopaedic content on perceived 'recognition', but on reliable sources. In as much as you have zero sources supporting your assertion that cars and automobiles are different, whereas I have many, both American and British, that say 'automobile=car' (see Webster Dictionary def 1c), you literally have no ground to stand on...and so you resort to vote-stacking. Funny. As soon as you admit that you were wrong, that your previous conceptions about what an 'automobile' is were false, and that car and automobile are equivalent, per reliable sources, I will stop responding. The evidence is on the table...you just need to swallow the bitter pill. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested additional input from nobody. But if you accuse me of vote-stacking again, or if you accuse WikiProject Automobiles of being a "cabal" again, I will request outside comment on your incivility. --Sable232 (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now notified Red Slash (talk · contribs) and Number 57 (talk · contribs) [5][6]. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Crouch, Swale:, Where did I miss those editors? I think I did miss @RevelationDirect: in the following discussion.[[7]] They opposed the 2014 speedy change from Automobile to Car. Just to be clear where I'm getting my list of editors. I'm starting with the Oct 22 discussion [[8]]. It includes a collapsed "copy of speedy renaming discussion". That contains a link to the 2014 discussion. I think I have notified every editor involved with that chain. Did I miss Red Slash and Number 57? Springee (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, they weren't notified, while you left a message on the talk pages of Dennis Brown and Armbrust. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:22, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree I didn't notify them but I don't see where they were involved in previous discussions. Was it a discussion that wasn't part of the chain I provided? Springee (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Explained here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Is everyone aware that accessing the "OED" through Wikipedia gives you an OED for Americans, quite different from the OED for English speaking people. :—)) Eddaido (talk) 05:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How's Merriam-Webster (def 1c) for you? RGloucester — ☎ 16:05, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at Cars – The article is called cars. We all call them cars. I do not understand why the article and the category would have a different name. Even so we all call the things we drive in to work cars, not automobiles. I thought Wikipedia used common names. I feel like Wikipedia is the only place where I find the word automobile anymore. Why change it to a word from a century ago and leave the article at car? Why change it at all? I struggle to understand why people are fighting about this. Tess Hawk (talk) 05:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"I do not understand why the article and the category would have a different name" because all autombiles are not cars, very simple to understand , why we cant just keep different name for main car article and leave categories as they were?? -->Typ932 ^T·C 08:53, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what reliable sources say...why do you keep repeating something that is quite simply, wrong? All automobiles are cars, and all cars are automobiles. It seems you are not a native English-speaker...perhaps you are confusing the definition of the relevant words in your own language with their definition in English? RGloucester — ☎ 14:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

seems you didnt understand what I mean "mainly transport people rather than goods" and u have renamed all cats to cars, vans are not cars for example, why we have to rename categories after that main car article? thats the main problem here, and why that renaming started without any notice or consulting groups after 4 years of silence??? very bad editing here -->Typ932 ^T·C 19:17, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never renamed Category:Vans...? I'm not sure what you're talking about. RGloucester — ☎ 19:28, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I make a suggestion. There is a strong group of advocates for the Category:Cars and an equally strong group for the Category:Automobiles - both sides have presented substantial arguments in support of their viewpoints. I am concerned that we have reached a point where neither is prepared to move, a sort of WW1 trench warfare scenario. Can I suggest, so we can all get on with more useful things, a compromise. Rename the Category: Motor cars. It resolves the issue of what kind of car we are talking about. Motor car is acknowledged in the arguments as a formal term for car and it makes it clear what type of automobile is being talked about for both American and English users. NealeFamily (talk) 06:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Revert to "automobile". Car and Automobile are not 100% synonymous. There is no rule that I'm aware of that forces us to use the name for a Cat that we use for an article, as Cats and Articles aren't the same thing either. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 16:26, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster (1c), Collins, Chambers (see also 'motor car'), Oxford, OED (def 2), Cambridge American...What more do you want, Mr Brown? What more do I have to show you to prove that 'automobile' is the same as 'car'? Why do you, an administrator, think that you can just make assertions without anything to back them up on a project based in WP:V? I'm sure you're aware that you've been selectively canvassed to participate here...do you care? RGloucester — ☎ 17:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is for you to stop bludgeoning the discussion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is for you to stop bludgeoning the process with your unsourced advocacy. You stop doing that, I'll stop doing this. RGloucester — ☎ 22:09, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose / keep as Cars – The term "motor car" for automobile is archaic; my grandma (born in late 19th century) used it, but my dad (born 1922) did not, as far as I can recall; "car" means "motor car" or "automobile" as the dictionaries confirm (unless it's used in a specified context such as "street car" or "railroad car" or "airship car" or "Ferris wheel car" or "side car"). Is there some part of the world where just saying "car" leaves some ambiguity about that? From ngrams it looks like "car" is overwhelmingly used to imply what we usually know as a car or automobile. If I'm wrong, show us. Also note that "car" continues to outdistance "automobile" in popularity in recent decades; I don't think that's about street cars and railroad cars. Dicklyon (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Dicklyon I am not sure your grandma meets WP:RS, although she probably has more wisdom than some of this discussion. Anyway as to the term car, it has a multiplicity of meanings, some antiquated and some not as you state. That is one of the major contentions from those supporting renaming the Category back to Automobiles. Motor car is still a term in common use, certainly in my part of the planet and throughout a number of publications in other parts as well. True, that people will commonly refer to a car rather than motor car in discussion, but that is not necessarily the same as a standard for a reference work. I hoped suggesting the change motor car would unblock the impasse in the debate and give everyone a way forward. I think you will admit that all sides are fairly well entrenched in their views and to resolve this will take some form of compromise by all. NealeFamily (talk) 22:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, motor car doesn't sound like a compromise to me, it being much less used than automobile. In any case, this discussion really belongs at the article, not the category. Dicklyon (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point of discussion: The New York Times has an Automobile section, not a car section. The automobile section covers light trucks such as the Chevy Silverado truck [[9]]. Springee (talk) 20:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never said a pickup truck was not an automobile or car. It is if it is used primarily for passenger transport, per the definition above. Even your article says: "Americans often use pickup trucks like cars". You can even register pickup trucks as passenger cars in New York State, based upon its usage for commercial goods haulage v. private passenger use. "Cars.com" includes pickups in its content, and notes their suitability as a family car. According to this article, they 'evolved more than any other car', becoming common 'family cars'. Pickups are found across "Car and Driver", and appear in the USNews "Best Cars" rankings, which notes that they are "built to last longer than most other cars on the road". What exactly are you trying to prove? RGloucester — ☎ 21:14, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As long as we're discussing, have you seen Automobiles (film), with Mater? Couldn't resist. Dicklyon (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As long as the main article is at Car the main category associated with it should be at Category:Cars. I don't have strong opinions on whether the article should be renamed, but the category should follow the article not the other way around. Thryduulf (talk) 23:30, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support restoration. Automobile is definitely not the only sense in which the term car is commonly used, and in some dictionaries (e.g. Merriam Webster and Webster's New World College Dictionary) it is not even the first sense listed; "a vehicle designed to move on rails" comes before "automobile". The criterion of using commonly recognizable names only applies to article titles; additionally, "Automobiles" is quite recognizable and has the additional advantage of precision and disambiguation.  --Lambiam 11:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We have something called WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, which also applies to categories. "Car" clearly meets that definition...which is why the article is at car, unless you want to challenge that? There's no evidence that anyone has put railways wagons or carriages in a car category, which is because 'car' alone almost always means 'automobile'. Which is also what the dictionaries say, by the way. Definitions are listed in the order in which they came into being, not by usage. Which is why there are those notes that say 'rare', 'archaic', and 'now the usual sense' (for the 'motor car' definition). Please also see WP:COMMONALITY...'automobile' is a term restricted to North America, and we don't use such terms when common terms exists. It cannot be said to be recognisable if it restricted to North American dialects of English. RGloucester — ☎ 13:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC states, "This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article." [My emphasis. --L.]This guideline is not about the name for a given topic, but about the topic for a given name. It aims to ensure that A Midsummer Night's Dream leads the reader to the Shakespeare play, and not the Mendelssohn overture. The term "automobile" is quite recognizable to Britons, as in the name of the Royal Automobile Club.  --Lambiam 22:53, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The term is not recognisable. Like I said, we know it, but that doesn't mean it is recognisable. That organisation is usually called RAC, not 'Royal Automobile Club', which is also the official name of the part that people are likely to interact with. In any case, look at the relevant dictionary for proof. It's an Americanism, and we don't use Americanisms or Briticisms when common terms exist, per WP:COMMONALITY. Yes, that's exactly the point about 'PRIMARYTOPIC'. When a term has many potential meanings, but only one 'primary' meaning, we locate the article at the primary meaning without disambiguation. Likewise with categories. In this case, it was determined that 'motor car' or 'automobile' was the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of 'car', and hence the article was moved to the undisambiguated title 'car', meaning that there is no problem with ambiguity. The word 'car', without disambiguation, very clearly means 'motor car' or 'automobile' in English. If you think it doesn't, then you need to present a case at Talk:Car and move that article rather than claiming that there is a problem with the category, which necessarily follows the article. RGloucester — ☎ 23:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Lambiam: "it is not even the first sense listed" — this is only true of those dictionaries which list senses in chronological order of appearance rather than current order of salience. Only the latter order is relevant for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC purposes. jnestorius^(talk) 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london and Good Olfactory: - Two people from the original discussion who have not commented. RGloucester — ☎ 14:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both editors were pinged when this discussion was opened. Springee (talk) 17:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Car and automobile are the same. Where I live the difference is that saying automobile and even worse motorcar is like putting ye olde in front of a store name. It just sounds old fashioned. No one says automobile for car unless they want to sound oldtimey or like this is the 1920s'. I do not think wikipedia should use that kind of marketing as if rolling back the clock. Its just more confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B116:8EFF:D973:F0D9:7D74:7C00 (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (closer of previous discussion). I would've thought that WP:DRV was the place to go for this, but I think that horse has left the barn, given the extent of the discussion already. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep at Cars. The primary topic for Car is so dominant and obvious that it outweighs any ambiguity. "Motor cars" may be used in UK law, but probably never in conversation. If the name "Cars" excludes vans and pickup trucks, I'm inclined to view that as a helpful separation. – Fayenatic London 09:43, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Motor cars would be overly precise for an article, and maybe even for a category. Crouch, Swale (talk) 16:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the following words have different meanings in British English versus American English: "automobile", "van", "truck". To British readers, "automobile" is an American synonym for "car", to Americans, it is a broader word than "car". The name appropriate for the category depends on what the contents are. One possibility is to have a three-level categorisation (Category:Motor vehicles>Category:Automobiles>Category:Cars) with e.g Category:Light trucks a separate subcat of Category:Automobiles. Maybe that is too much hierarchy; in which case, do we merge Category:Automobiles into its parent Category:Motor vehicles or do we merge the children of Category:Automobiles into its parent? jnestorius^(talk) 15:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

'Automobile' does not have a broader definition in American English. See Merriam-Webster (1c), or any of the other dictionaries listed above. There's no reason to accommodate some sort of slang that may exist hidden away in 'automobile' enthusiast circles, but not anywhere else or documented in reliable sources. We follow reliable, mainstream sources, which are clear that an 'automobile' is a car, and that a 'car' is an 'automobile'. Please note that as things stand, Category:Cars consists entirely of stuff related to passenger cars. There's some question about the Category:Cars by decade, where it seems that in the past, some people have put other stuff in there...but that can be fixed easily, by simply going through and making sure things are in the right category, which is probably Category:Vehicles by year of introduction. If we look at the average category in the cars tree, like Category:Cars introduced in 2010, there are by and large no issues. This is the only category tree that seems to have any issues at all, and those are minor. Everything else checks out. RGloucester — ☎ 15:56, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose / Keep. "Car" is the article. The words mean the same thing in this context (in a broader one, "automobile" is actually be misleading, since it can also include pickups, truck (semis/lorries), vans including moving and delivery as well as family ones, buses, etc., etc). A basic principle of writing and communication is not to use a lo-o-ong, complex word when a simple, everyday one will suffice. See also WP:COMMONNAME and WP:CONCISE. "Motor cars" is right out. That's like 1915-speak, when a lot of people still had horse-drawn carriages. The fact that some aficionados of cars like to call them automobiles is irrelevant. We've had this debate innumerable times (e.g. "pool" versus "pocket billiards", etc.). Given that this is seeking to overturn a previously closed CfD and a previously closed RM (stable for many years in favor of "car"), the consensus-has-changed showing would have to be remarkable – as in WP:SNOWBALL – to revert to "automobile" here. — AReaderOutThataway ^t/_c 16:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The "Car" article does include discussions of pickups and the like and has since the article was created. Furthermore, since the category had always been "automobile" many editors have used it to tag articles that included extensive or even exclusively "truck" content. So this wouldn't be a simple babe change as it rescopes the category. Snowball doesn't apply as this is a challenge to a recent closing on the grounds that no notification was given to interested editors. With a wider audience it's clear there is no consensus for the change from Automobile to Car thus it should have never happened. Finally, there is no rule the that category and article must have the same name. Given the way the category had been used (editors over the years have chosen to apply it to articles that "Cars" claims to exclude) it's clear that car and automobile are not fully synonymous. Automobile this becoming a category that, in North American terms would be "light passenger vehicles". Springee (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral I was originally for keeping the categories at automobiles, which is less ambiguous than "cars". However, the term "car" has become gradually more synonymous with "automobile" over the past century - and less synonymous with "railroad car". "Auto" is also easier to say/write, but again more ambiguous, and much less used. Go to cars.com, or similar sites, and there will be "New Cars" and "Used Cars" sections with sedans, coupes, pickup trucks, and SUVs/crossovers underneath. Also, it's true that many dictionaries/dictionary websites equate "car" with "automobile", but I personally think that's oversimplifying the term. OED and friends shouldn't be the final judges of Wikipedia terminology. So, while I still think the term "car" can be ambiguous, its usage, worldwide, has grown over time enough where I can relent and let the category names fall where they may. --Vossanova ^o< 14:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Its interesting to note that Cars (film) is American and still has that title, not Automobiles (film). This is good evidence that that's what there called even in America, since that's what the film is based on. So yes Cars is more ambiguous than Automobiles, because its more common! Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disney called an animated movie about airplanes, "Planes" not Airplanes. Not sure that means much. Springee (talk) 20:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cars (film) also had Mater (a tow truck based on a pickup), Mack (a full-size truck) and Guido (a forklift). If we take a children's movie too far then it may not go where we want it to go :)  Stepho  talk  01:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as "cars" per arguments above and as the OP made no argument in favour of rename (this isn't DRV). DexDor ^(talk) 18:42, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor:, I made my arguments for the rename further down the article (4th bolded entry). When I created this discussion I didn't use DRV since this wasn't a question of deletion. WP:MR might have been the right place but I took that one to be for article moves. Ultimately it was here because it wasn't clear where else it should be. Springee (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I read your (and other) supports and didn't see a strong argument in favour of rename. DexDor ^(talk) 18:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you don't agree with the reasons but that isn't the same as no reason which is what your post above said. Springee (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No reason to rename was given in the CFD nomination. DexDor ^(talk) 21:45, 14 November 2018 (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: I do not feel that I can close this discussion as anything other than keep. That said, as noted, this may be a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, since WP:SHAREDNAME at least seems directly on point. There are, of course, exceptions to every rule or guideline. It would help to gain a broader consensus that this is a scheme that needs to be excepted from those general guidelines with prima facie apply. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Minor planets by source of name
• Propose deleting Category:Minor planets named for animals
• Propose deleting Category:Minor planets named for biblical people
• Propose deleting Category:Minor planets named for fictional characters
• Propose deleting Category:Minor planets named for comics characters
• Propose deleting Category:Minor planets named for fairy tale characters

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, WP:TRIVIALCAT and in the spirit of of WP:SHAREDNAME, the source of the name of a minor planet is wholly peripheral to the topic of minor planets. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WT:AST, WT:ASTRO, & WT:SOLAR notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  13:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The sister cat to these is Category:Named minor planets, which is quite large, at ~22k. Category:Minor planets by source of name serves to identify & group needles in that haystack. It's informative, useful, and well-maintained by project members. WP:AST is in a unique position when it comes to notability, redirects, and articles, which is why WP:NASTRO, ((NASTRO comment)), and these categories exist.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• From an astronomy point of view the fact that two minor planets both have names from Slavic mythology is an entirely irrelevant basis for grouping, in contrast to Category:Minor planet groups and families. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Historically, there have been different phases to the allowed nomenclature of minor planets (see Meanings of minor planet names). The names are not arbitrary, and reflect different periods in the MPC's/IAU's history, and are thus not irrelevant. If, for example, the MPC never swayed from exclusively using female characters from mythology, then an argument for their further refinement would be difficult (i.e. that would be an irrelevant basis for grouping, and Category:Named minor planets would be sufficient).   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  20:04, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• For history we already have the numbering system of minor planets in place, as well as Category:Astronomical objects by year of discovery. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historically, a minor planet's number, discovery date and name are different things. There is no redundancy. Rfassbind – talk 11:57, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Tom.Reding's argument. We need something to locate the needle in that haystack of a category. Dimadick (talk) 15:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose There is no reason to get rid of this category list. This category, as stated by Tom.Reading, serves as a vital system to allow for easy accessibility of articles by name. The alternative, as stated, is exceedingly large, prohibiting any meaningful search. Just because the name may not be a physical property of the planet does not mean that it is not important or relevant. Were we to take that approach for everything, large quantities of the site would have to be removed.SuperChris (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• ""The alternative, as stated, is exceedingly large, prohibiting any meaningful search." That is incorrect, because Category:Minor planet groups and families allows a meaningful search and keeps allowing a meaningful search after deletion of the nominated categories. And by the way we do take the same approach for everything! Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the naming of minor planets is notable theme about them, it's not trivia. Part of the discover-and-name thing. --Pudeo (talk) 12:10, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose — It's not the first time that certain editors want to delete these name-related minor-planet categories based on WP:SHAREDNAME (when the subject's name is a non-defining characteristic, i.e. inappropriate for being mentioned in the lead portion of an article"). Now, take a look at almost any named minor-planet article (start level or higher). You'll find that the source of the name is right there mentioned in the lead section. When it is in the lead section, and possibly even in the summarizing infobox, how can anyone claim that it is WP:NONDEFINING?. Rfassbind – talk
• Comment preceding comments look like a case of WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. jnestorius^(talk) 15:26, 30 October 2018 (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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rāja yoga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, apart from the eponymous article the term does not occur at all in one article and only occurs in footnotes in the other article. WP:SMALLCAT may also apply. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 26 October 2018 (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.