Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 6



TSV 1860 Munich

 * 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 all (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:TSV 1860 München to Category:TSV 1860 Munich
 * Nominator's rationale: To bring in line with parent article TSV 1860 Munich after it was moved from TSV 1860 München to its new name following the discussion on Talk:TSV 1860 Munich. Calistemon (talk) 22:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming: Category:TSV 1860 München managers‎ to Category:TSV 1860 Munich managers‎
 * Propose renaming: Category:TSV 1860 München matches‎ to Category:TSV 1860 Munich matches‎
 * Propose renaming: Category:TSV 1860 München players‎ to Category:TSV 1860 Munich players‎
 * Propose renaming: Category:TSV 1860 München seasons to Category:TSV 1860 Munich seasons
 * Propose renaming: Category:TSV 1860 München II players‎ to Category:TSV 1860 Munich II players‎


 * Support all Obvious renames after the page was moved. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:34, 7 May 2016 (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.

French historic monuments by location

 * 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.  Doczilla  @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Monuments historiques of Indre-et-Loire to Category:Official historic monuments of Indre-et-Loire
 * Also Category: Monuments historiques of Centre-Val de Loire to Category:Official historic monuments of Centre-Val de Loire
 * Nominator's rationale: Propose changing names combining English and French terms to all English (monument historique = historic monument). This would bring the name in line with its grandparent Category:Official historical monuments of France. The category's description can make it clear that the French designation monument historique is analogous to UK scheduled building, US national historic landmark, etc. Eric talk 13:50, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Note: When I followed the "Click THIS LINK..." under Categories_for_discussion, I was brought to an edit window containing only the most recent nomination section, and no commented instructions. I think there is a glitch somewhere. Eric talk 14:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for pointing out this error. The instructions at WP:CFD do say Follow the instructions in the comments (visible during edit), but there was no edit notice – I have created one. Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion if it is unclear, too long, etc. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. We have an article called "monument historique", and it is a formal designation. There are also a bunch of other subcategories of Category:Official historical monuments of France that use "monuments historiques". If we are going to change it, all of the categories that use this designation should be changed, not just two of them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:21, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment see also this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link. I previously had no recollection about closing that discussion, but it's coming back to me now. Just to be clear about my comment, I am basically neutral on the proposal to change the French to English. I could support either approach, as long as it is applied uniformly across the category tree. I do think that it doesn't make a lot of sense to use a generic name on the head category but then to use the formal designation for the subcategories. That could be fixed by renaming the subcategories to use English, or by renaming the head category to use the official designation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Good Ol', thanks to Marco for the link to last June's discussion. I find the mixture of French and English to be awkward and unnecessary, especially given that historic monument is the exact translation of monument historique, linguistically speaking. Comparison to equivalent official designations used in the various anglophone countries can be provided in the cat's description. Eric talk 15:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep because it is an official designation. Each article needs to be provided with a head note identifying its scope as linked to the designation, to discourage the addition of undesignated items.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think that monument historique being an official designation means that the English Wikipedia category name should be partially in French. I'm sure we have plenty of categories for other non-anglophone countries where we have translated the official term to English, for example: Category:Historic_monuments_in_Romania (monumente istorice), Category:Monuments and memorials in Italy (Monumenti nazionali). Eric talk 20:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose us keeping it as "Historical Monuments" (so capitalised) with a headnote limiting it to those officially designated. French is a widely spoken language (unlike Romanian), but this is the English WP.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename as per nomination; this is the English Wikipedia, not the French Wikipedia, so we can use the English translation of the French term. We have an article at Germany not Deutschland, etc etc. ~ RobTalk 13:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per GO, if it is true that Monument historique can be considered a parent article to this category, and then designate that article as a parent article (or would it be "grand parent" article?). Or rename Monument historique first.   --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose per SmokeyJoe; this is a specific class of entities with a specific designation in French, and our use of the French-language title is just as reasonable as the German use of an English-language title in categories such as de:Kategorie:Denkmal im National Register of Historic Places (Ohio). Moreover, your argument for mere translation would call these things merely "historic monuments", a generic term a la historic site; your argument is inconsistent and would produce a system that can't at all be kept consistent, because there are lots of historic sites in France that don't have Monument historique status.  You also suggest inventing a new term, "official historic monument" — official according to whom?  Yes, France is a unitary state, but that doesn't prevent communes from putting up signs celebrating such-and-such a place as an official historic monument.  And finally, I don't say "keep" because these aren't monuments historiques of any department: these are national monuments, not departmental monuments, so they should be "Monuments historiques in X Department", not of.  Nyttend (talk) 15:07, 28 June 2016 (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:Northern Ireland MLAs 2011–

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


 * The result of the discussion was: speedy rename (WP:C2C). – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2011– to Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2011–16
 * Nominator's rationale: Update the category name, to reflect the fact that a new Assembly was elected yesterday. Valenciano (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * rename to Category:Northern Ireland MLAs 2011–16 to conform with MOS:DATERANGE and per other similar subcategories of Category:Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. I have also [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3ANorthern_Ireland_MLAs_2011%E2%80%93&type=revision&diff=719060554&oldid=427787469 tagged] the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * REname -- A 2016- category will be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Procedural rename, uncontroversial housekeeping. Warofdreams talk 21:59, 7 May 2016 (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:Reddit employees

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Reddit employees to Category:Reddit people
 * Nominator's rationale: For websites naming the category "XYZ people" is more inclusive and accurate in the long term. This category already includes at least one former employee and in the parent category, there are other biographies of reddit people who are not employees. Those biographies need a category, and it should be "reddit people".  Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Error message in posting Like above I got an error message about this post. I gave notice at Village_pump_(technical).   Blue Rasberry   (talk)  15:40, 6 May 2016 (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:Tweenage characters in comics

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting tweenage characters in comics


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary and arbitrary subcat of Category:Comics characters. Created in March and was subsequently never populated.  Satellizer el Bridget (Talk)  13:31, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - in addition to the nominating rationale, there's no clear definition of 'tweenage', making it hard to find articles it applies to. Argento Surfer (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2016 (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:Hero Cities of the Soviet Union

 * 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) 01:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Hero Cities of the Soviet Union
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * A Hero City is a Soviet-era award issued to whole cities for resisting the Nazi invasion from 1941-1944. This isn't a battlefield category, it's was given to major cities like Saint Petersburg, as Leningrad, and Volgograd, as Stalingrad. (There is one non-city article in the category, but it is miscategorized based on a similar award.) Kiev is a city of 3 million people that was founded in 482; this category defines that article by a 1965 award for the events of 1941 which doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already lisitifed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Ezhiki as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Soviet Union. – RevelationDirect (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified WikiProject Russia as well.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2016 ; 12:49 (UTC)


 * Background We deleted a similar Soviet city award here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Per WP:NONDEFINING, [a] defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having.... This is certainly the case here, and I see nothing in the nomination that demonstrates otherwise; if anything, the nominator himself seems to be hesitating about the applicability. NONDEFINING simply does not apply, and neither does OCAWARD, which is dependent on it.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2016 ; 12:36 (UTC)
 * Delete, not every characteristic is a defining characteristic and it is certainly not in this case. One really needs to search for the fact that a city has once been a Hero City, it's not one of the primary things mentioned. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * When I use the the WP:OCAWARD reason for a nomination, I always put the WP:NONDEFINING reason after it in parentheses. It's not that I'm unsure of it's applicability, I just don't think the award rational provides any analysis beyond "nondefining, but with awards". (Based on your comments, I think we agree on this point.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is a national award and probably not a common one. We dislike AWARD categories because they create category clutter, but there is an exception for major awards; I guess this is one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What is your guess based on? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The USSR had two other national awards for cities (Historical city of Russia, City of Military Glory) that included most major population centers. We have a number of award articles in Category:Community awards but the only subcategories that group the actual cities are both Soviet. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I wonder whether we might allow a category for City of Military Glory, as having replaced the Soviet category; in which case I would accept deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * We do have a category for Category:Cities of Military Glory. (Full Disclosure: I'm not a fan of that category either.) RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Noted. I now think that should be the only city honour allowed.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:NON-DEFINING - look at, for example, Kiev where there's no mention at all of this award in the text (and only a small fraction of the article text is about WWII) - WP:DNWAUC applies. This (as with most/all awards) is much better presented as a list than as a category. DexDor(talk) 21:31, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * re: Kiev: - well-known hatred in modern Ukraine to all thing Soviet; obviously reflected by editors of the article. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:22, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep, an outstanding characteristic of a city. - üser:Altenmann >t 06:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable characteristic, especially in historical times. Appropriate example of categorisation. AusLondonder (talk) 08:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Being granted an award is not a notable characteristic of a city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2016 (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:Television series by Warner Bros. Television

 * 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 creating an additional sibling and parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Television series by Warner Bros. Television to Category:Television series by Time Warner
 * Nominator's rationale: It can't be called under the Warner Bros. Television name anymore, shows from other Time Warner divisions are in the category since their owned by Time Warner.47.54.189.22 (talk) 10:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes but the authors were Warner Bros when they were made, not Time Warner. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I know that, but the rename from WBTV to Time Warner, will make the category the home of all Time Warner shows, HBO shows like Game of Thomes can be coming to the category, the only HBO shows listed are ones like Everybody Loves Raymond, Turner shows from channels like CNN and TBS will also be in the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * So, you know your rationale for a category merge is wrong, but you want it to happen anyway, just so everything produced by a company connected to Time Warner is in one category? Trivialist (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I want the merger and rename to happen — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Create as parent category - the category as it currently exists is a little blurry. It's supposed to include only WBTV series, but includes members like Cartoon Network and CNN, which are properties not of WBTV but of TBS, a sister company. We can remedy this by moving those to a new Category:Television series by Turner Broadcasting System and creating Category:Television series by Time Warner as a parent for the WBTV and TBS categories. Ibadibam (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes: i will accept a spilt of the WBTV category in two (Category:Television series by Warner Bros. Television, and Category:Television series by Turner Broadcasting System) The Time Warner TV category will be only the parent category, also Warner Bros. owns the HBO library like Everybody Loves Raymond, where is the HBO shows outside of HBO programs like Sex and The City, going to go, say in the WBTV category or what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 11:43, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Don't fix what's not broken, leave the category as is. Creativity-II (talk) 00:39, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Im merged all spin off categorys into the WBTV category, and also merging the New World TV category into the 20th Century Fox Television category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.54.189.22 (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume you're referring to the CfDs at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 11? Ibadibam (talk) 19:46, 11 May 2016 (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.

Hindu theology

 * 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) 01:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Hindu theology to Category:Hindu studies
 * Propose upmerging Category:Hindu theologians to Category:Hindu scholars
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, the term "theology" is alien to Hinduism, there is no article Hindu theology and Category:Hindu theologians is nearly empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2016 (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.

Islamic theology

 * 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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 13:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Islamic theology to Category:Islamic studies
 * Propose upmerging Category:Shia theology to Category:Shia belief and doctrine
 * Propose renaming Category:Ismaili theology to Category:Ismaili belief and doctrine
 * Propose upmerging Category:Muslim theologians to Category:Muslim scholars of Islam
 * Propose upmerging Category:Mamluk theologians to Category:Mamluk scholars and Category:Muslim scholars of Islam
 * Propose upmerging Category:Islamic theology books to Category:Islamic studies books
 * Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, the term "theology" is alien to Islam, there is no article Islamic theology and not too many people in Category:Muslim theologians are really defined as a theologian. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * wouldn't be a better target? – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That may be an alternative too. My understanding of (Christian) theology, then phrased in terms of these categories, is that it's the scholarly study of (Christianity), for example about belief and doctrine, so that's why I suggested to merge to "studies" wherever I could, because all the content is about scholarly studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: There is no truth to the claim that "theology" is not applicable to Islam. Oxford University Press has just published The Oxford Handbook of Islamic Theology, and the table of contents matches closely with the topics listed under Category:Islamic theology. Islamic Studies is an umbrella term for various Islamic fields and there is still a need for a separate category for Islamic theological thought. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It's true that the term "Islamic theology" doesn't have a long history as "Christian theology" does, and the whole concept of "Islamic theology" might not be the preferred approach to studying Islam in the Muslim world. However, in quite some Western countries, Islamic theology has been lately established as an academic discipline. If this proposal was about renaming categories to something better, I'd be open for alternative suggestions, but a simple merge IMHO doesn't really help us. A genuine main article on Islamic theology however remains desirable. --PanchoS (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2016 (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:Communities on U.S. Route 66

 * 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) 01:04, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting communities on u.s. route 66


 * Nominator's rationale: Same issue as below: being on a road isn't defining. Taking this to every notable road would create an unmanageable category overload. Mangoe (talk) 02:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I don't believe this category is the same as the one below. –Fredddie™ 11:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - Nondefining category.  Dough   4872   20:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- We have deleted many such categories in the past. My view is that being on a route is in the nature of a  performance category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete This is not defining to many of the communities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete we have lots of similar categories of places, such as on various rivers, bodies of water, border crossings (which seems to be a "current" category since former border crossings tend not to be included). Start the pruning here, I guess. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 19 May 2016 (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:Ghost towns on U.S. Route 66

 * 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 delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting ghost towns on u.s. route 66


 * Nominator's rationale: Lots of roads are famous, still signed or not. There seems to be nothing defining about this. US routes generally already have a list of communities they pass through, and these are already categorized as ghost towns by state, so there's no need for listification or upmerge. Mangoe (talk) 02:20, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: the nominator's rationale is sound, but US 66 is a special case among all roads in the US. These ghost towns are intrinsically linked to the road in ways that is not true of other highways. They're ghost towns because US 66 went away.  Any other road in the US I would absolutely !vote delete, but I can't for US 66. –Fredddie™ 11:21, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * First, US 40 is by far the more historic road, if not having the benefit of Hollywood romanticism, and there are surely many towns along it that no longer exist. But second, I'm not seeing this connection to the bypassing by I-40 in most of the articles, and those that do source it mostly to fansites. Third, there's also the problem that a lot of these aren't ghost towns; they have ceased to exist entirely. Finally, maybe it makes sense to categorize ghost towns by the reason they became so, but surely there are other towns on other roads which evaporated because of being bypassed. The point is that this doesn't add up to this category. Mangoe (talk) 15:02, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, much to my surprise. Clicking through the articles, most of them attribute their depopulation to the end of Rte 66. There are some exceptions though: Anaconda, New Mexico abandonment was due to the closure of the Anaconda copper mine so I'd be open to some rename that limited the contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:28, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The argument "US 40 is by far the more historic road..." (if not for what popular culture has to say on the matter) isn't really the point. The difference seems to be that the 40 wasn't abandoned, it just evolved into the I-80 in the west, and remains a heavily travelled route in many places, just under different names, no? The 66's importance to the ghost town issue is unique. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * US 66 wasn't abandoned either. Like US 40, it was bypassed in favor of interstates; US 66 dropped as a route number, but the road(s) didn't disappear. And surely small towns along the bypassed segments of US 40 and the many other US routes supplanted by limited access highways also faded away. Mangoe (talk) 23:42, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Who are you quoting? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The claim that US 40 is "by far the more historic road" doesn't really hold water here. US 66 has a segment of Americana that US 40 or any other road simply doesn't.  Lincoln Highway, Jefferson Highway, and the National Road come close, but still not to the degree of US 66. –Fredddie™ 03:20, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete - Category cruft. We already have categories to sort ghost towns by state. Categories of places along a road is nondefining. Also we can't be sure all these ghost towns came about because of the demise of US 66 as there could have been other factors too.  Dough   4872   20:41, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep One of the strongest defining characteristics of these ghost towns is their shared location on Route 66, and this category allows readers to navigate across these articles. Alansohn (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Listify – While there's clearly a strong relationship here, it's not enough to satisfy the requirements for a category. Changing to a navbox or list would keep this relationship visible to the reader while maintaining a hard line against overcategorization. Ibadibam (talk) 23:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep—per Fredddie. Don't listify or delete this as US 66 is a special case where American roads are concerned.  Imzadi 1979  →   12:14, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Listify to the extent sourced; one could put together categories like this for nearly any disused road system, rail system, formerly navigable river, canal, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 19 May 2016 (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.