|
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions
|
Purge the cache to refresh this page
Speedy renaming and speedy merging
Categories may be listed here if they fall under the criteria specified at Wikipedia:Category renaming and repeated below. Deletion and de-listing may occur after 48 hours if there are no objections. They must be tagged with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}} so that users of the categories are aware of the proposal. This delay is to allow for objections over correct spelling, etc. to be made and to ensure that items are not listed here that do not meet the criteria.
Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g. "patent nonsense", "recreation", empty categories (that have been empty for four days) can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}}, and no delay is required for these.
Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD using the instructions above.
Speedy criteria
Criteria for speedy renaming or speedy merging are strictly limited to:
- Typographical errors (such as, Brdiges → Bridges).
- Note that differences between British and American spelling (for example, Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors, but if both exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
- Capitalization fixes (such as, Characters In harry Potter → Characters in Harry Potter)
- Conversions from singular to plural, or back (such as, Steamship → Steamships)
- Non-conformance with "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).
- This should only be used where there is no room for any doubt whatsoever that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory. It should not be assumed that an incorrectly formatted "radio stations" category was intended to be a "radio" category, or that an incorrectly formatted "archaeological sites" category was intended to be an "archaeology" category.
- Expanding abbreviations for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country (for example, US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to United States, but this criterion specifically does not apply to renames between the terms "American" and "United States").
- Renames to match a disambiguated parent category such as Category:Georgia (country) or Category:Georgia (U.S. state) from an unqualified name are eligible for speedy renames.
When the speedy rename procedure should not be used:
- When proposing that the category name should be reformatted in addition to one of the speedy criteria
- When proposing that two or more changes should be made, each of which qualifies under the speedy criteria
- When proposing to change a country name to an adjective, or vice versa, as in United Kingdom to British, American to United States, Germany to German, Argentine to Argentina, etc.
- When proposing a change that is based on a naming convention adopted by a specific WikiProject but does not otherwise meet any of the six speedy criteria listed above
- When proposing a change that does not qualify under any of the six criteria above, regardless of whether or not the proposed change will bring the category into conformity with existing categories
Note: If the nominator decides to change a nomination based on comments, simply delete the old nomination and create a new one as long as it still meets the speedy criteria.
Add requests for speedy renaming here
If the category does not match one of the six criteria listed above PRECISELY, do not list it here, but list it in the main section instead. If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here. Use the following format:
- * [[:Category:OLD Name]] to [[:Category:NEW Name]] ~~~~
Don't forget to tag the category with {{subst:cfr-speedy|new name}}
Please add new entries at the TOP of the list and sign and date stamp your entries with — ~~~~.
A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, the time stamp shown is 10:16, 6 September 2008 (UTC) or earlier.
Ready for deletion
Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.
Current discussions
September 8
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:Boston Somersets players
- Category:Boston Somersets players - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The Red Sox may have been infomally named the Somersets at one time, but the main official reference tools for historical team names do not indicate that is was an official team name. MLB.com says they were the Pilgrims for a stretch, while Baseball-reference.com and Retrosheet.org, indicate that they were the Boston Americans from 1901 through 1907, then the Boston Red Sox from 1908 until present. The two players in the category are already in the appropriate category, no need to merge. Neonblak (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
September 7
Category:Sitcoms
- Propose renaming Category:Sitcoms to Category:Situation comedies
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the lead article Situation comedy. Otto4711 (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Skimo
- Propose renaming Category:Skimo to Category:Skimo characters
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. All of the articles are for characters. Otto4711 (talk) 23:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose rename — I added the article Skimo to the category, which strangely wasn't there. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:2009 Canadian federal election templates
- Category:2009 Canadian federal election templates - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Nominator's rationale: The government moved the election to 2008. There is nothing in this category. What was here was moved to Category:2008 Canadian federal election templates Nfitz (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Delete — the election is schedule 14 October 2008 (see main page "In the news") — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 07:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Highways and Expressways in the Czech Republic
- Propose renaming Category:Highways and Expressways in the Czech Republic to Category:Motorways in the Czech Republic
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. While this category and the matching template use highways and expressways, the common term from all other sources appears to be motorways. Motorways appears to be the common name for this class of roads in Europe. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Motorway is the UK term. It's rather a stretch to say it is common 'in Europe' where there are autoroutes, autobahns etc. It would seem a better idea to rename all the articles first (none of which use motorway ... this can be an area of some contention). 'Motorway' is a more specific term than 'expressway', I think. Occuli (talk) 23:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Well there is the Road and Motorway Directorate of the Czech Republic which seems to be an official organization. There home page is here and one of their English pages is here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- It would rather depend on the translator - according to Expressway there are about 3 stretches in the UK known locally as expressways but otherwise the terms freeway, expressway, highway are not used (although often encountered in films, songs etc). A Czech person will learn either US-English or UK-English depending on various unknowns. (The second link you give uses expressway in the text and the first one uses no English at all. This one uses both motorway and expressway, suggesting there is a distinction; and its photos are not all of 'motorways' – it has several photos, viewable via reloading.) I don't know enough about these roads to be able to tell which meet the UK motorway definition (which is nearer to Freeway than Expressway). Occuli (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada
- Propose renaming Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in Canada to Category:Freeways in Canada
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use a more commonly used name for these roads. In reading the various Canada road articles, there seems to be some overlap between freeway and expressway. But freeway appears to be the dominant description for roads that meet the super long category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment – there are also Autoroutes in Canada, which I am told are called autoroutes in (Canadian) English. I have gained the impression that this is something of a minefield - see eg this archive. Occuli (talk) 08:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Indonesian Ambassador
Category:Thai film lists
- Propose renaming Category:Thai film lists to Category:Lists of Thai films
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To comply with the standard for categories of film lists, particularly Category:Lists of films by country of production. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to mach parent cat.--Lenticel (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Singaporean film lists
- Propose renaming Category:Singaporean film lists to Category:Lists of Singaporean films
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. To comply with the standard for categories of film lists, particularly Category:Lists of films by country of production. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 12:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to match parent cat.--Lenticel (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Cornwall lists
- Propose renaming Category:Cornwall lists to Category:Cornwall-related lists
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The convention is to append "-related", as per the parent category Category:England-related lists Tim! (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and per its rubric – This category is for lists related to Cornwall. Occuli (talk) 14:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Researchers (nationalism studies)
- Propose renaming Category:Researchers (nationalism studies) to Category:Researchers in nationalism studies
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Unnecessary dab. Any other options work better? E.g. Scholars of nationalism studies? Upmerge, possibly? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in the United States
- Propose renaming Category:Highways with full control of access and no cross traffic in the United States to Category:Freeways in the United States
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are freeways. I think this name goes back to some old edit wars. Shorter and accurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment - Whew, that name sure is frightfully long. But I couldn't help noticing that a bunch of different terms are employed in the various sub-categories, "freeways" being just one of many.
Category creator stopped editing in October 2007 Cgingold (talk) 10:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, the name used by each country can vary by country and in the case of the US, by state. However in the US, freeway is the most common name to describe these contents. I did not suggest renaming the parent or the other siblings since it is not clear to me right now what they should be renamed as. This name cleanup is a bit more difficult them most since all of these possible renames could be to a name different then this proposal. As to the editor stopping edits, I think you may find something in the Arbcon archives. The parent category will not control the names of the subcats since these need to reflect local preference. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Freeways of the United States as "freeway" is the most common name for these roads (provided they aren't tollways). If that doesn't work, then Category:Limited access highways of the United States. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to
Category:Limited access highways in the United States rather than freeways because of the scores of limited access turnpikes which are members of this category.Category:Freeways in the United States per Scott5114 Sswonk (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Sswonk (talk) 20:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- The "free" in "freeway" refers to freeflowing, not being free of charge. Most turnpikes are freeways. (There was an edit war over this on Kansas Turnpike...) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Right. All toll roads are freeways. Many, but not all, parkways, turnpikes and expressways may be freeways. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Actually, not all toll roads are freeways. the Adams Avenue Parkway isn't a full freeway, but that's beside the point. The "free" in freeway is free as in freedom, not free as in beer. Imzadi1979 (talk) 09:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to Freeways in the United States. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename to Freaways in the United State. It's the logical, and much more concise name to use.
Category:The College of Wooster
- Propose renaming Category:The College of Wooster to Category:College of Wooster
- Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia naming conventions suggest that this should be renamed to avoid the use of the definite article, but the category naming conventions make no mention of the subject. - Eureka Lott 01:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, and to match the main article, which the cat rules does mention. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom, and per College of Wooster, and per the photo shown on the college's home page (assuming that reading a sign is not OR). Occuli (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and main article (though I wonder at why the article is where it is, considering Image:COW_seal!!!.jpeg). Actually, the category naming conventions page does say that, "Standard article naming conventions also apply", and to me that would suggest not using def/indef articles like here. Deamon138 (talk) 04:14, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Incidentally, aside from the signs such as the one that Occuli pointed out, the College refer to themselves as "The College of Wooster" religiously, and in the wider world it isn't uncommon to see them known as "The" rather than "the". This would be relevant per WP:THE where it says, "On the other hand, some universities religiously refer to themselves as "... The University of X..." even in running text. If such usage is prevalent on university press releases and press kits, contact information, "about" pages, and internal department websites, and it is reasonably common in external sources (try a Google search), then it is more appropriate to name the Wikipedia article The University of X". Of course, currently renaming the category makes sense, however I'm just wondering whether it would make more sense to rename the article instead? Deamon138 (talk) 04:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Roman Catholicism
- Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholicism in the United States to Category:Roman Catholic Church in the United States, Category:Roman Catholicism in Slovenia to Category:Roman Catholic Church in Slovenia, and Category:Roman Catholicism in Japan to Category:Roman Catholic Church in Japan
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Category:Roman Catholic Church by country and the main article - Roman Catholic Church. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Eikaiwa
Category:Eikaiwa (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
-
- Thanks for linking to that, GO -- I was pretty rushed and didn't notice it when I set up the CFD. There's one comment that I think needs to be taken into consideration in our new discussion:
-
- Rename to Category:English conversation schools in Japan. My understanding is that eikaiwa schools differ in that they only teach oral conversational skills—there is generally no study of written language at all; the focus is on helping people be able to converse in English. (The public school system's courses in English have more of an emphasis on English writing and grammar and being able to read English.) Also, the word "eikaiwa" in Japanese specifically describes a school that teaches English language conversation—an eikaiwa that teaches a language other than English is an oxymoron. Snocrates 04:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
- What I would like to know is, if we stay with the fairly narrow name suggested here, would there also be a need for a somewhat broader category along the lines previously suggested? Cgingold (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Educators in Japan
Category:Educators in Japan (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- I didn't spot an article about a non-Japanese educator, Nihonjoe -- did I miss something? Also, the term "educators" by definition refers to people, so I'm not sure what you're referring to. In any event, the articles that are there look to me like they would do just as well -- if not better -- in Category:Education in Japan. Why do you think there's a need for this particular sub-cat? Cgingold (talk) 02:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- There are plenty of categories (I would guess at least half of the existing categories) which don't have corresponding articles, so that's not a valid reason to delete this one. I was referring to the companies Johnbod mentions below. And there are several articles about non-Japanese educators in Japan, but they aparenty have not been categorized yet. I'll see what I can do about that. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- keep per Nihonjoe's rationale. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 02:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. We already have Category:Eikaiwa, and we don't have any articles yet, it seems, on foreign educators working in Japan, who could in any case go in "Japanese educators" I think. The rest can be merged up or down the tree. Johnbod (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing out Category:Eikaiwa, Johnbod. I didn't even realize what it was because the term is unfamiliar -- so I've added a new section immediately above to propose renaming that category. Cgingold (talk) 03:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
September 6
Ensemble cast
- Category:Ensemble cast - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Category:TV series with an ensemble cast - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Category:Ensemble comedy - (|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete all - the parent category is small with little or no likelihood of expansion. The subcats are subjective and require original research. Otto4711 (talk) 16:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Keep all – this is by no means small, as there are dozens of subcats in this umbrella parent (one might as well delete Category:People). Friends is an ensemble cast – is this really original research, or merely self-evident? Occuli (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Dozens? There are exactly two subcats under the parent, the other of which is nominated for deletion separately. And yes, deciding whether the "principal actors" in a series is given "roughly" the same amount of importance is OR. What does that even mean given roughly the same amount of importance? Are we talking about billing, screen time, number of episodes, salary? Otto4711 (talk) 21:37, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep all: Firstly, surely it would've made sense for the discussion about the film category to have finished first before nominating these? Especially since these cats were brought up there: it doesn't make sense to divide discussion in two places. Also, the category doesn't fit the definition of small, since that says, "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". I fail to see how these categories "by their very definition" will be small. You then state that the categories are subjective, contradicting your belief that the categories will be "small": could this be your subjective opinion? Anyway, no this category doesn't have to be original research or subjective opinion, it has to be based on reliable sources as all categories do. See also my last comment on the film version of this CfD here. Finally, as Occuli says, Friends is a very very good example of an ensemble tv series, with a whole paragraph devoted in its article to discussing it. Deamon138 (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: I should also say that there needn't be only two sub-categories of the main cat. There is room for a plays one, and an operas one perhaps. I don't watch operas or plays, so I have zero knowledge on those media, however someone more knowledgeable than me might want to create those cats if these ones aren't deleted. However, I'm not going to create those two. Deamon138 (talk) 07:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- There are 62 subcats going down 3 levels (and more further down). This is 'dozens'. Otto seems to have a touching belief that only the top level 'counts'. 'People who agree with Otto' is a subcat of 'People'. Occuli (talk) 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- The only reason Ensemble cast had so many subcats is because Ensemble comedy was improperly placed as a subcat of TV series with an ensemble cast, which is the narrower category. Otto4711 (talk) 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- I added "Ensemble comedy" as a subcat of the TV series one, because that is what it seems to be being used for: it doesn't contain films. Of course, if these cats are kept, then I don't necessarily think we need subcats like that one at the moment. Maybe in the future, but right now, I don't think we have enough to further categorize each ensemble film, tv series etc as subcat of drama or comedy or whatever. However, if we keep Ensemble comedy, it should either be renamed to show what it is categorizing (ensemble comedy tv shows), or it should be added as a subcat of both the film and tv series ones if the cat is opened up to film ensembles too. Deamon138 (talk) 18:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- It is also being used to house subcats for sketch comedy, comedy troupes and sitcoms (which is a totally inappropriate subcat since not all sitcoms feature ensemble casts). Otto4711 (talk) 23:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986-present) players
- Propose renaming Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986-present) players to Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986–present) players
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:Dash —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Here are a few discussions of WP:DASH and its application to categories: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_19#Canadian_Soccer_League_(1986–1992), Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_13#Bilateral_relations, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_12#Category:Georgian-Abkhazian_conflict —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:40, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose use of non-standard characters in category names. This is change for change's sake and there is no need for it. Otto4711 (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
- "Change for change's sake" implies that the nominator is bored and has decided to start moving categories around for no reason. This is clearly not the case; hyphens in date ranges are wrong, implying conjunction where we have disjunction. The tiny hyphens look unprofessional and contrast the guidelines we use in articles, creating a false distinction—categories, unlike the project namespace, are visible to readers. Waltham, The Duke of 03:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Alternative form suggested - Category:Vancouver 86ers/Whitecaps (1986 – present) players Mayumashu (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment WP:DASH reads in part "To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November)" it seems as though adding a space contradicts this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:And so does WP:DATE. Deamon138 (talk) 04:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment: Otto, en dashes are standard characters. Please read MoS and the best external authorities on this matter. On a computer screen, moreover, the need for the slightly longer en dash is yet more important; it aids readability and carries important meaning per se. But whether in hard-copy or on-screen, "1989-present", taken by itself, looks like a gift received in 1986. The meaning to needs to be clearly in evidence through the use of an en dash: "1986–present". If I were starting again, in any case, I'd be going for "...Whitecaps players (since 1986)"—much better. Tony (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose. En-dashes aren't present on the standard keyboard and most contributors, not being dash fetishists, don't bother keying in the html escapes to produce them. Since a hyphen is equally clear to a normal reader in effectively every situation, most people just use that. We should accomodate this normal practice and ensure that when people write the category title so, the article will join the category as intended. Readers are not affected adversely by this because the fraction of readers who care about the distinction is insignificant. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006 — present) players
- Propose renaming Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006 — present) players to Category:Canadian Soccer League (2006–present) players
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:DASH. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually, what I'm suggesting is using a character that is on every standard keyboard in, as far as I know, the world, to make it easier on readers interested in this material, many of whom have probably never heard of WP:DASH, to find it. Most people, it is my firm belief, are going to use a hyphen in the search box and not an en-dash. Otto4711 (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- One, the character can be created in the keyboard. Two, the version with the hyphen can be typed and one will find a soft redirect. The category is not made inaccessible as a result of the change; in contrast to most other category moves, where the initial category is deleted, moves from hyphenated to dashed versions should always leave the redirect behind. Waltham, The Duke of 04:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment WP:DASH reads in part "To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November)" it seems as though adding a space contradicts this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Comment:And so does WP:DATE. Deamon138 (talk) 04:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Oh dear, this one makes fools of us: an em dash, spaced? There is an urgent need for the MoS to knit together the punctuation practices here. Tony (talk) 05:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Category:Toronto Blizzard (1986-93) players
- Propose renaming Category:Toronto Blizzard (1986-93) players to Category:Toronto Blizzard (1986–1993) players
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:DASH, clarity with year numbers. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Comment WP:DASH reads in part "To convey the sense of to or through, particularly in ranges (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November)" it seems as though adding a space contradicts this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- It does. Spaced en dashes should only be used when at least one of the two parts joined by the dash includes a space (for example, a full date on either side, or both, in contrast to plain years). On another note, I am not sure about using a year abbreviation or not here, but I shouldn't know about the conventions of these categories; in any event, a certain degree of consistency is desirable. Waltham, The Duke of 04:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
-
- Thank goodness the two-digit closing year is finally in evidence. It makes the reading easier. But an en dash simply must be used here. 1986–93, not 1986-93. Enter the 21st century, please. Tony (talk) 05:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose; our readers care nothing for the distinction between dashes and hyphens in this context, and the proposed change is likely to reduce the functionality of these categories. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Wars
- Propose renaming Category:Argentina-Brazil War to Category:Argentina–Brazil War
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. WP:DASH. In all cases, I propose changing - to – per the MoS. I am also proposing renaming *Category:Military units and formations of Soviet-German War to *Category:Military units and formations of the Soviet–German War for grammar's sake and *Category:Ecuadorian-Peruvian Conflict to *Category:Ecuadorian–Peruvian conflict for caps. (I am tagging these after I nominate, so please be patient.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
| complete list (TL;DR) |
| (hyphen to ndash) |
|
| |
