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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:U.S. Roads articles needing expert attention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category only used by one editor and I don't think that person was using it correctly. An expert on U.S. Roads would be asked to write about transportation concepts and theories, not a route description for a Tennessee state highway. There are better ways to grab the attention of a WP:USRD editor than this one. –Fredddie™ 23:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete—unneeded in the future. Imzadi 1979 → 00:10, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep without prejudice against a fresh broader nomination. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:English-language television stations in the United States to Category:English-language specialty television channels in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Little problem: the term "television station" is typically synonymous more with broadcast television stations.

Almost all of these are what are typically deemed "cable networks". ViperSnake151  Talk  20:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment then the non-specialty channels have to go elsewhere (where?). And someone has to determine what is a specialty channel and what is not. I wouldn't call CNN a specialty channel. --mfb (talk) 20:35, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose. Nominator is correct that there's a problem here, relating to the constant popular fuzzification of the actual distinctions between television "stations", "channels" and "networks" — those three terms properly mean different things, but get muddled and fuddled and duddled up with each other in common usage all the time anyway. However, there's a much larger problem than just this category alone: the parent Category:English-language television stations directly contains 68 articles, and has sibling categories for 10 other countries besides the United States, which are all subject to the exact same problem as their contents are also more properly termed as channels rather than stations. So no prejudice against a larger batch discussion to reconsider how we name all the related categories, but I can't support singling this one out for special treatment when its problem is endemic to the whole tree and not unique to the United States. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2019 (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: rename. As this is close, please note the following factors: 1 - one of the oppose !votes is now indefinitely banned. 2 - The precedent set at Manned missions to the Moon, which was closed with a "rename" outcome. Fish+Karate 13:46, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As follow-up to Manned missions to the Moon I suggest the following moves due to MOS:GNL:

• Category:Manned space observatories -> Category:Crewed space observatories
• Category:Manned space program of Russia -> Category:Crewed space program of Russia
• Category:Manned space program of the Soviet Union -> Category:Crewed space program of the Soviet Union
• Category:Manned submersibles -> Category:Crewed submersibles

This also fits to existing categories like Category:Crewed Soyuz missions and Category:Crewed spacecraft. --mfb (talk) 19:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Thanks for catching these! - Sdkb (talk) 02:58, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We should strive for consistency.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This should've waited for the other one to close. "Crewed mission" is a phrase this is far less (an order of magnitude less) used than "manned mission" - see NGRAM. The same is true for "space program" - NGRAM, submersible - NGRAM - and so on and so forth. Furthermore, "manned" - merriam-webster - is a gender neutral term defined as "carrying or performed by a human being" and is not man or woman specific. Icewhiz (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been put up for discussion together with the first one but I can't change the past. I don't see why it would be useful to wait for the other one to finish. Yes, "manned" technically does not exclude women but "crewed" avoids any uncertainty about this. It might be used less frequently but it is clearly an established term. --mfb (talk) 21:01, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Pointless. Already gender neutral. Dumbing down language to pander to ignorance doesn't seem appropriate for a place where people are supposed to learn.(Hohum ^@) 23:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I think Icewhiz and Hohum have it. Can't wait for Armstrong's quote to be "corrected": "That's one small step for [a] crew, one giant leap for crewkind"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Are there/will there be any females (not just feminists) posting here? Men discussing if "manned" is neutral? Anyone who wants to be "they" could post as an IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:902:46B0:A52D:B166:3008:9B75 (talk) 11:54, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it matter? Also don't forget the consistency aspect which is independent of it. Currently we have a mixture of crewed (more common in article titles) and manned. --mfb (talk) 10:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - we don't correct quotes, but we do choose what to name our categories. And I somehow don't see making gender disclosure a requirement of commenting on a category naming discussion. --GRuban (talk) 11:54, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Manned is gender neutral. In any event almost all the astro- and cosmo-nauts were/are men. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. "Man" should not (or should no longer) be used as a gender-neutral term to refer to all humans. Funcrunch (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- "Manned" is by definition gender-neutral. An Encyclopedia is to inform with precision, this necessitates the use of accurate terminology. The changes to this, and a number of other articles regarding the (Largely NASA cited) swap from "manned" to alternatives seem thus wholly unnecessary. If there was a push to swap all appropriate instances of "manned" with "crewed" for reasons of consistency, I would be in support. However, the gender-neutral agenda on this site currently seems unreasonably aggressive. PiggiusMax (talk) 12:13, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: The discussion at Category:Manned missions to the Moon was closed the other day with consensus to redirect to Category:Crewed missions to the Moon. Given the aforementioned categories that already use "crewed", it seems pretty clear that the prevailing norm at this point is to use "crewed" over "manned", and that an argument for renaming can be made based solely on WP:Consistency. - Sdkb (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  As both discussions were open in parallel there is no reason to favor one over the other. If the aggregate discussion (both) is at no consensus, then the default decision is to retain the status quo.Icewhiz (talk) 19:46, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Consistency was always an important part (maybe even the most important) of the proposed move. And I don't see any opposition considering consistency. --mfb (talk) 08:14, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. —Yours sincerely, Soumyabrata (contributions • subpages) 13:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Primarily per the consistancy argument, but also partly due to gender neutal language. Even if it never was intended to be gendered it is, as demonstrated by the responses in this discussion, percived by some to not be gender neutral. --Trialpears (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is just getting ridiculous. Manned is the excepted English usage for these things. The moon mission renaming was a mistake, and these would be bigger mistakes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment, if this discussion closes differently than the other, the two discussions should be reviewed together at WP:DRV in order to reach consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the many comments that have correctly stated that Manned is by definition gender-neutral. It's also the word overwhelming used in reliable sources to describe this stuff, so as an encyclopedia based on verifiability, it makes sense for us to match what the sources say. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there has been a recent, well attended RfC on this topic with consensus that "Manned" should be avoided where possible at Wikipedia talk:Manual_of Style/Archive 215#RfC on gendered nouns in spaceflight. This is generally respected in articles which also strengthen consistency arguments. --Trialpears (talk) 07:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  This discussion was primarily motivated by NASA's style guidelines. However, NASA does not have the monopoly of sending people into space, not even in the English-speaking world. The European Space Agency's website seems to use manned quite a lot, like in the subhead of this piece dated 15 Oct 2019, in the caption and text of this Nov 2018 article on their programme called the "Manned suborbital vehicle", or in their presentation of Soyuz spacecraft, in which they use both manned spacecraft and crewed flight. I would therefore not think this is general policy. Place Clichy (talk) 08:33, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  If you wish to overturn the consensus at that RfC I suggest that you start a new one. The NASA guideline was only a starting point and in no way integral to the argument made. The only reason it wasn't added to MOS:GNL seems to be that it was thought to be redundant to the advise there and should thus be weighed by the closer as an argument based on a directly relevant guideline. I have also just put a closure request at WP:ANRFC. --Trialpears (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Media General (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. defunct broadcaster, so probably wont expand Rathfelder (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - there should be a speedy delete process. Oculi (talk) 08:57, 23 July 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Note that the article is already in the tree of Category:Sportspeople from Georgia (U.S. state). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sportspeople from Palmetto, Georgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only sportsperson (Or any notable person) from small one county community with just 1 entry. I recommend bypassing the usual merger to People from Palmetto because Chastain is the only entry there too. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Categories like this are not automatically entitled to exist the moment there's one sportsperson from that community to file in it; rather, they have to pass the WP:SMALLCAT bar. Nominator is also correct that we should bypass upmerging it to Category:People from Palmetto, Georgia, because that's also a one-entry small category. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_24#Category:Palmetto,_Georgia, where I've nominated some other related categories for deletion as well: in essence, the entire scheme is a seven-category nest serving solely to overcategorize Ashley Chastain herself. Bearcat (talk) 15:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to county/state categories. Straight delete takes Ashley Chastain out of Category:Sportspeople from Georgia (U.S. state) altogether. Oculi (talk) 17:13, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The one article is well categorised without this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2019 (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: merge to Category:Mentalists. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish Mentalists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality is rather strongly against splitting a category by religion or ethnicity unless it's a key feature of the main category; and I don't see these mentalists doing mind reading in a particularly Jewish way. I also don't see a large number of sources focusing on their Jewishness. I asked the category creator and they said that they made the category because "9 out of 65 pages are jews there. It is roughly 85 times their percentage of the total population". I'm not sure what they mean by "the total population", but I don't see that as an exception to the guideline. --GRuban (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC) GRuban (talk) 14:09, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. There is no need for this segregation. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Mentalists per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Mentalists, which has no other subcats. Oculi (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge per above. Place Clichy (talk) 20:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above. Note - if the consensus is to keep, it should be changed to Category:Jewish mentalists. Grutness...wha? 13:44, 24 July 2019 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rod Laver (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Insufficient content. Oculi (talk) 09:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:43, 23 July 2019 (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: rename. MER-C 12:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Primo! Priorité Monaco politicians to Category:Priorité Monaco politicians

Nominator's rationale: I have moved the main article to Priorité Monaco. "Primo!" is a short name for Priorité Monaco; the short and long names for the party are alternatives, not parts of a full name. – Fayenatic London 07:18, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --GRuban (talk) 11:43, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - double name is unusual --mfb (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2019 (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. – Fayenatic London 07:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in British India
• Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium disestablishments in British India‎
• Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium establishments in British India‎
• Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in Portuguese India
• Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium disestablishments in Portuguese India‎
• Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium establishments in Portuguese India‎

Nominator's rationale: delete, British India and Portuguese India both existed entirely within a single millennium, i.e. a diffusion by millennium does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support How to quickly mop up all these millennium cats? Why do editors have such a passion for creating them? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the templates for century categories used to create links to millennium parents. This is now optional. – Fayenatic London 20:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - However, Category:2nd millennium in Portugal and Category:2nd millennium in the British Empire make perfect sense to exist, and without these subcategories, we would have to dump British and Portuguese Indian events into these main categories. --GRuban (talk) 11:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The entire Category:Portuguese India is a valid subcategory of Category:2nd millennium in Portugal. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- most millennia categories are a waste of space. It is rare that there are enough centuries for them to need splitting, even for Portugal and British Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2019 (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. There is already a List of recipients of Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World, which I am moving up to the parent category Category:Ten Outstanding Young Persons of the World. – Fayenatic London 07:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:TOYP Awardees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, many articles in this category do not even mention the award at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCAWARD; making it into a list seems possible. --GRuban (talk) 11:44, 25 July 2019 (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: merge. – Fayenatic London 07:01, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Heroes by role to Category:Heroes

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant container category with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: not clear what "by role" even means here. --GRuban (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2019 (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.