Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 18



History of Dutch Brazil

 * 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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:17th century in Dutch Brazil‎ to Category:History of Dutch Brazil
 * Propose merging Category:Establishments in Dutch Brazil by century‎ to Category:History of Dutch Brazil
 * Propose merging Category:Disestablishments in Dutch Brazil by century to Category:History of Dutch Brazil
 * Propose deleting Category:Centuries in Dutch Brazil‎ (container category becomes empty after above mergers)
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, century categories (in plural) don't make sense here since Dutch Brazil existed for less than 30 years. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree less is more. Riventree (talk) 22:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge all to Category:Dutch Brazil. This colony existed from 1629 to 1661.  There is thus no worth in having century categories.  It lasted well under 40 years, all in one century.  I would go further and also rename Category:17th-century establishments in Dutch Brazil to Category:Establishments in Dutch Brazil.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You're ahead of me, that would be the next step indeed! Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


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

Category:Modern reenactment

 * 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 * The result of the discussion was: keep/withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting modern reenactment


 * Nominator's rationale: According to the policies, categories define a set of pages: a set of inclusions and the remaining set of exclusions. There's an implied "sensibility" threshhold which is why we don't have categories like "pages whose first and last characters sum to a prime number in Babelonian orthography". The current category is so broadly defined that people have placed within the category:


 * 1) Individual reenactors
 * 2) Specific closed-beginning-closed-ending events (1994 reenactment of Lincoln-Douglass debates)
 * 3) Types of reenactment as subcategories (Civil war reenactment)
 * 4) Types of reenactment as entries in the category (WWII reenactment)
 * 5) Things that are not reenactments of any sort: lost crafts such as "buckskinning"
 * 6) Things that are fictional role playing environments (SCA, as a non-listed example)
 * 7) Places where reenactments sometimes take place


 * My argument for deletion is fairly simple: The category as it stands in literally non-sensical. If we take the "expand it to be inclusive across the entire set of the above examples" tack, this category would need to include ~1k pages. Defining it more narrowly and making it more sensible would require argumentation on several fronts with people of enough perspectives that it would be an undertaking of nontrivial proportion.


 * Since it makes no sense as it is, and both alternatives for improvement are costly enough that there are no volunteers to improve it, I propose it be deleted so it will mislead fewer people.


 * Furthermore, most of the pages listed are also grouped by other categories that are both better defined and more relevant.


 * Lastly, it's a false dichotomy: There is no "non-modern reenactment" category or concept to justify the use of the word "modern". Reenactment inherently implies that it's happening post-hoc.


 * I suggest that we delete this category for now, and let it be re-added if someone finds a coherent definition and set of pages to include. I don't want to have a big fuss about "This category should exist!" "No it shouldn't!" I am proposing we delete it UNTIL someone who cares enough to Do It Right comes along and does it right.


 * P.S. I personally feel that there is a dearth of editors who care about the GENERAL content and structure of Wikipedia. Sometimes "Bold" is what we need. I don't think any serious harm would be done by deleting this category, and it certainly muddies the waters by merely existing.

Riventree (talk) 21:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If it's nonsensical, why do we have so many articles that are in it?  "Modern" reenactment is a recognised term for the reenactment of modern era history (which can be as recent as Vietnam War reenactment or Ostalgie). There are reenactors, some do modern period, some have highly notable TV programs about them doing it, we have articles about them. So why not the category?
 * Also I've just had to undo a whole bunch of edits for preemptively blanking this category because Riventree had already decided "Category going away". That is not how we do things. Especially not right before a CfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Even if these co-categoried articles are not apples and apples, I still think that there are enough potential similarities that having this category populated with various aspects of historical reenactment allows for a serendipity of discovery for persons who were interested in one of the articles and then were able to find other articles that they would not have otherwise known they were interested in. (This is not to say that it might not be appropriate to remove or recategorize some articles.) Let me share a quote from my user page (below) that summarizes my general thoughts on this topic, and let's discuss further as needed. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

"'I like putting articles into categories, and creating new categories when appropriate. This includes cleaning up Stubs and putting them into Categories. I think the basic journalism questions of who, what, where, when, and why are often overlooked when articles get categorized, and I think that such categorization can improve the wiki reader's experience (Even though 'why' categories are harder to come by). Also, there are plenty of times when thinking abstractly about the subject of an article can lead to some good categorization that otherwise would not suggest itself.'"
 * Keep: Glad to find this debate is still going on. After seeing the unilateral removal of articles from the category.  If the contents are too broad surely, other categories should be created first before any deletion.  That way this one eventually becomes redundant or becomes a parent category.  Red Jay (talk) 11:14, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Purge and restructure. I agree with the majority of the nominator's argument that this category is heavily misused. Their WP:BOLD move was probably not the best way to get that point across, but it got the discussion started. This category should probably be renamed and given subcategories for each topic (events, actors, venues); in practice, what results would look very little like what's currently there. —烏Γ (kaw), 06:27, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * A brief concession
 * It is my experience (see old 'Lant' entry discussion) that deleting the poor results in (short term) improvement in content, and long term someone who cares may come along and produce something worthwhile. Conversely waiting for other people to Make It Better is futile and endless. There are a LOT of people who disagree with me - that's good. There should be lots of opinions. Our goals are the same: improve Wikipedia. Our methods (active vs passive) are different, and each is appropriate in some circumstances. I apologise for my over-quick action. I genuinely didn't see the "Categories for Deletion" thingie. (I've queued articles for deletion before, but not categories) Riventree (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please consider voting for deletion this category. I strongly believe it will be the shortest path to a better internet resource. Riventree (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Please consider voting for deletion this category. I strongly believe it will be the shortest path to a better internet resource. Riventree (talk) 12:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * keep no valid WP reason for deletion provided. Category has appropriate population, has a main article, and can be further populated.  Hmains (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I withdraw my proposal. Keep it and good luck to you. Riventree (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


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

Category:Xiangqi position

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Xiangqi position to Category:Xiangqi
 * Nominator's rationale: Only one template remains in this category. The other contents appears to have been transferred to commons:category:Xiangqi position. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment the category description should be merged to the remaining template, as it does seem to document things, which is missing from the template. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:21, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I've copied the content over to the doc page -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:33, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, good idea. The description was also already at the Commons category page, but should also be helpful on the template doc page. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.

Shipwrights

 * 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: do not merge, at least for now. It sounds like a clean-up is in order. After the clean-up, perhaps this could be reconsidered, depending on the contents of the categories at that time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Shipwrights to Category:Shipbuilders
 * Propose merging Category:American shipwrights to Category:American shipbuilders
 * Propose merging Category:Australian shipwrights to Category:Australian shipbuilders
 * Propose merging Category:British shipwrights to Category:British shipbuilders
 * Propose merging Category:English shipwrights to Category:English shipbuilders
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. Old-fashioned word for the same thing. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:37, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, not really. Category:Shipbuilders employ Category:Shipwrights, or used to. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What was the difference? None is suggested on the page Shipbuilding. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:19, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I just said. Shipwrights were blue-collar, shipbuilders could be the bosses. Certainly in England from at least 1800 shipbuilder suggests a suit, paunch and gold watch. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * By that definition most of the contents are miscategorised, as the articles describe them as shipbuilders, naval architects, boat designers etc. Of those I examined, only Mary Lacy and William Grant (Ulster Unionist politician) appear not to have attained those descriptions. Oh, nor J. T. Jose, but there is no citation for his being a shipwright at all. Maybe we should purge the white collars, and merge the national categories to Category:Shipwrights as the remainder will be so small? – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, on the basis Shipwright has always been a redirect so clearly the terms are interchangeable. Shipwrights and shipbuilders build ships. Maybe a redirect could be left for the merged categories? There is already a separate category tree for Category:Shipbuilding companies. Sionk (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - Johnbod is right. In general, a wright is a carpenter by our modern terms.  A ship "builder" could be anyone involved in the process which brings about the building of a ship. which can include everything from logistics to production to finances, etc. That said, these cats seem to be a hodgepodge and definitely not restricted to wrights, nor do they seem to be directly in a craftsman/artisan cat tree.  So let's just clean these up. I did some cleanup the subcats of Category:Woodworkers and Category:Carpenters and Category:Construction trades workers. So these should be clearer now. If someone with hotcat or whatever would now tackle the individual articles, that would be appreciated : ) - jc37 20:01, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I Oppose the nom, and support cleanup : ) - jc37 15:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


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

Category:Ships by shipbuilding

 * 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 for now; if users decide that there is also a need to categorize ships built by individual shipbuilders, then perhaps a broadening of the name could be considered in a new nomination. But generally, ships are built by companies, not sole individuals, even when the company is named after the founder or main guy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ships by shipbuilding to Category:Ships by shipbuilding company
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename in order to make sense. Note that Category:Ships by company is already used for ships by the company that owns/manages them. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Category:Ships by shipbuilder ? -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 06:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think so, because Category:Shipbuilders contains mainly individuals. The contents here correspond to Category:Shipbuilding companies. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is that a proper categorization for persons though? Companies are also called "shipbuilders" in the real world. The distinction used in the category name for persons should not be of such ambiguous quality. If we use ships by shipbuilder, then persons and companies can be included. Meanwhile the person category itself should be renamed to something less ambiguous (shipwright? shipbuilder (person)? ) Though, the shipbuilder category also contains companies, so it isn't really a person category. -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 05:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, on the basis (1) the name is currently wrong (2) it only contains categories for ships built by ship building companies (it's hard to imagine an individual ship builder building enough notable ships to warrant a Wikipedia category and, if they did so they would more than likely do it via a company of shipyard). The Wikipedia category tree currently differentiates between "Shipbuilders" and "Shipbuilding companies". Sionk (talk) 01:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.

Diseases with eradication efforts

 * 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 both into a new Category:Infectious diseases with eradication efforts. If users want to nominate this new category for a new/better name, it's OK to do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merge Category:Diseases with moribund eradication efforts to Category:Diseases with eradication efforts
 * Propose merge Category:Diseases with active eradication efforts to Category:Diseases with eradication efforts
 * Nominator's rationale: merge both categories into one new category, per WP:SMALLCAT. The first of the two nominated categories contains only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree with concept of merging the two cats, but query whether Category:Infectious diseases with active eradication efforts or Category:Pandemic diseases with active eradication efforts, is better worded, because there are numerous diseases (maybe almost all of them?) with efforts to prevent/cure them (the same as eradication?) like cancer, obesity, diabetes, lupus, etc. which are not infectious; and what of the infectious diseases like malaria, tetanus, rabies, and plague which are often dealt with prevention or quarantine as eradication. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds very reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


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

Category:Eradicable diseases

 * 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 into the new Category:Infectious diseases with eradication efforts, which was a result of the discussion immediately above. A post-merging cleanup might be required, because a disease which someone might have categorized as eradicable is not necessarily properly categorized as an infectious disease with an eradication effort. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Eradicable diseases
 * Nominator's rationale: delete as eradicability is a non-permanent characteristic. The category was part of a larger nomination here that ended as no consensus. I believe however that there was a close-to consensus to at least delete this one category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete not permanent and possibly not knowable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Diseases with eradication efforts (see above). Achieving eradication is provable. The existence of an eradication effort is provable. "Being potentially eradicable" is not. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
 * So this is actually a merge proposal. Since there is a pretty big overlap between the categories anyway, I'm fine with merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


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

Category:Caitlyn Jenner

 * 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 and merge contents to . Can be re-created (and potentially reconsidered at CFD) if it becomes possible to populate the category with more than the current four articles and four non-free files (images). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting caitlyn jenner


 * Nominator's rationale: Only has five articles and one is pretty tangentially related (   Olympic Decathlon). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Support per WP:EPONCAT. My cutoff is 5 articles and this only has 4 valid ones. No objection to recreating later if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm no fan of this, but there are a handful of articles here that benefit from it. It's also (15 minutes and counting) likely that we'll have more. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep More articles will probably appear eventually. No point deleting this category only having to recreate it later. PointsofNoReturn (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , That's just WP:CRYSTAL. If sufficient material exists, it is not difficult to create a category: anyone can do it in seconds. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I did not know that policy. Still, is there a rule of how many articles a category needs to exist? PointsofNoReturn (talk) 18:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
 * No, WP:SMALLCAT is frustratingly vague. My cutoff is 5 and yours can be 4. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:EPONCAT. There are only five articles here, which isn't really enough to make this navigationally necessary — the only other things that have been added to it are some images (which don't belong in articlespace categories) and a redirect to one of the aforementioned five articles (redirects can be categorized when and where that's useful, but "target is already sitting directly in the same category as it is" is one of the situations where it's not.) And of the five articles, I'd actually deem two of them to be too tangential to belong here (the South Park episode being the other one) — so this is really a three-item category once you factor for actual WP:DEFININGness. No prejudice against recreation if and when the number of articles for which Jenner is actually a genuinely defining characteristic actually gets up to five or six or ten. Bearcat (talk) 04:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/UpMerge to Category:Jenner family. - jc37 19:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per Jc37. A family category is plenty. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Overhyped by media.The Amazing Spiderman (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


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

Category:Traffic collision deaths in Liberia

 * 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 for now, though given this discussion, it's possible that it might be named back to "traffic collision ...". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Traffic collision deaths in Liberia to Category:Road accident deaths in Liberia
 * Nominator's rationale: To match the other categories under the same parent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename for consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 12:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.

Introductions by year and Introductions by century

 * 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: do not merge. However, editors seem to be open to some adjustments to the names and what are included in the categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Introductions by year to Category:Establishments by year
 * Nominator's rationale: It seems that the well-established category Category:Establishments (pun intended) has a fork: Category:Introductions by century and Category:Introductions by year (they do not have a parent category; there is no Category:Introductions (it concerned Wikipedia namespace articles anyway and was renamed per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_29). Simply put, there is little reason to distinguish between introductions and establishments, and while we could split hair, in 99% cases both wordings are acceptable. As such, I propose to merge Category:Introductions by century to Category:Establishments by century and  Category:Introductions by year to Category:Establishments by year (technical note: I couldn't figure out how to list both categories in the Cfm2 template name, so I just listed the ... by year here; but this nom also concerns ...by century ones, too). If the decision is to keep, please link it from the talk of all relevant categories, and recreate Category:Introductions as the parent one, with proper explanation what belongs to it, and what to the establishment category (good luck with that...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  02:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Question: the wording established doesn't really sound right to my (American ears) for things like products (which in AmEng are "introduced"), tv series (which are as likely to cancelled as to become "established", which connotes some endurance), and subcategories that are titled "... debuts", which seems synonymous with "introduced" but not with "established" (again to my ears). One can say, The Beatles debuted (were introduced?) in 1960 but they were established in 1962 when the members were set and Love Me Do was released and the band achieved notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Agree with nominator that it's very closely related, agree with User:Carlossuarez46 that it doesn't sound as the same. Maybe we should rename the entire "Establishments" tree into "Startups", in that case Introductions would probably better fit in. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have establishments and a disestablishments so they match each other. They seem to fit for large things non-personal (?) things like countries, buildings (somewhat, some use "completed"/"demolished") but I agree that products are different. I think (in a separate discussion) introductions should be changed to Category:Debuts but I can't think of how to categorize terminating products (for either debut or introductions). I think they should be different and each subcategory should have its own RFCs and whatnot to decide where it should go. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose That said, introductions seems to be a conglomerate (pardon the pun) of ideas/concepts and "objects produced" by when they were introduced. I think renaming/merging to Product introductions, with the term "product" in its broad sense of "something produced/made/developed", might be a better way to go. I don't think we want "ideas by the year they were formulated" : ) - other rename suggestions are welcome. - jc37 19:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


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

Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways

 * 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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose Renaming Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways to Category:Auxiliary U.S. Highways Category:U.S. Highway special routes
 * Nominator's rationale: Per the appearance of WP:SHAREDNAME.
 * Background:The way the U.S. Highways are numbered, the main trunk highway has 1 or 2 digits (Route 66) and the auxiliary roads have a number before that (166, 266, 366, 566). So there is a connection between the type of road and the numbering, but the numbering isn't what's defining. This is identical to the my earlier nomination creating Category:Auxiliary Interstate Highways. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified SPUI as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject U.S. Roads. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose—unlike the Interstate highways, in the situation of the U.S. Highways, "auxiliary" means not the three-digit children of the two-digit parent, but rather they are the Alternate/Business/Bypass/City/etc "bannered" routes. So U.S. Route 141 is not an auxiliary highway of U.S. Route 41, but U.S. Route 41 Business (Marquette, Michigan) is.  Imzadi 1979  →   05:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposal United States Numbered Highways describes these as almost identically to the Interstate naming. If you can work on fixing the accuracy of that section, I'd be happy to withdraw this nomination until we have a more factual basis of discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * That section is accurate as written. It never calls the three-digit numbers " Auxilliary", . For you to use that to extend the term to this situation for the category would be engaging in OR. The more common term for the auxiliaries to the US Highways is special routes, which is the term used in the next section of the article.  Imzadi 1979  →   10:36, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I updated the nomination based on your feedback. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I don't think the nominator understood what Imzadi1979 said. We already have a category, Category:Bannered and suffixed U.S. Highways, for the special routes, so this new category would be redundant to that one.  The proper thing to do for Category:Three-digit U.S. Highways category is to upmerge it into the main Category:U.S. Highway System.  And then we can sort out any duplication from there. –Fredddie™ 11:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Since "auxiliary" U.S. Routes refers to bannered or suffixed routes rather than three-digit routes.  Dough   4872   13:11, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn for now. Although this category is problematic, there is not consensus above for how to fix it. Please join the conversation about next steps at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


 * 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.