Talk:Avus

RFD discussion: February–April 2023
I previously nominated this term as a member of cat:en:Named roads, but it was kept on the basis that this term was never singled out in that discussion.

Defined as "A major road in Berlin". CFI states, "Most manmade structures, including ... individual roads and streets ... may only be attested through figurative use".

&mdash; excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 21:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Keep, reopened too soon, and you blew it the first time. DonnanZ (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What kind of argument is that? --Lambiam 18:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn’t. DonnanZ simply doesn’t give a shit about WT:CFI. Theknightwho (talk) 16:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * A lowbrow throwaway comment. DonnanZ (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I am far from the only person to have made this observation, and there’s nothing “lowbrow” about it. Keep your snobbery to yourself. Theknightwho (talk) 17:34, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ?? DonnanZ (talk) 19:18, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete unless some figurative sense is identified and verified, as required by WT:CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Beware. The nominator wants to renominate them all; in Category talk:en:Named roads (at the bottom) he stated: "I think I will re-nominate these individually over time." I would like to nip that in the bud. DonnanZ (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In fact, that is preferable to a mass nomination where it is difficult to focus on individual entries. If a particular entry is not in accordance with CFI, there is no reason for it to remain. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What it means is the category is unusable. DonnanZ (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Categories are driven by entries, not the other way around. If there are no qualifying entries in a category and it is not foreseeable there will be, then the category should not exist. In any case, this is theoretical because there are named roads with figurative senses such as and  (though I do not think the plain street-name senses should remain). — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * If the name of a specific entity is used in another sense, derived from some characteristic of that entity, and become lexicalized as such, it behoves the lexicographer to record this as its etymology, preferably while identifying not only the eponym but also its relevant characteristic. --Lambiam 11:56, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly. For example, in the "street in Manhattan, New York City, New York, United States" sense should be removed, and the fact mentioned in the etymology. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, maybe the Named roads category should be removed, and a financial one selected instead. DonnanZ (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @DonnanZ To be clear I am not planning to spam the requests all in one week. I can spread them out over several months if that would be preferred. &mdash; excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 20:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I would prefer it if you let things be. I have stopped using the category as it has become too toxic; I don't want to see contributions like Birdcage Walk deleted. Don't tempt me into emptying the category. DonnanZ (talk) 21:38, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Are you essentially admitting that entries like Avus and Birdcage Walk have no figurative sense? In that case why should they not be deleted in accordance with policy that was reached by consensus in a formal vote? Why should any particular entry be retained in the face of policy because one or more editors wish to hang on to them for nostalgic reasons? I’m not seeing how that is a workable way to manage things. — Sgconlaw (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * They may not have figurative senses, but they certainly are of historical interest. If the guidelines are too narrow, allowing figurative senses only, they are at fault, excluding streets of historical interest, or those that are just plain famous. You won't find articles for every road name on Wikipedia, e.g. Staines Road, roads heading towards Staines of which there are a good few in the south-west Middlesex area, including one only a stone's throw from my house, can't be found there, yet London Road has a large number of articles. I have found out that notability matters on Wikipedia, but I wouldn't include either here. But I would consider Oxford Street in London, a famous shopping street. I would recommend that the guidelines are revised to allow for famous and historically interesting roads and streets, but not the less interesting run-of-the-mill ones. It's a case of knowing where to draw the line. DonnanZ (talk) 11:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In that case, start a formal vote to amend WT:CFI if you wish. (However, it seems to me iffy to rely on “historical interest” as a criterion for inclusion – it is really quite subjective.) As long as CFI remains in its present form there is no reason why it shouldn’t be enforced. — Sgconlaw (talk) 00:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Few people will contest that, the and the  are of historical interest. Is it your position that these should all have an entry here? Why stop at historical interest? The  and the  are of culinary interest.  is of thermodynamical interest. Should there, in your view, be any entity of encyclopedic interest that does not deserve inclusion here?  --Lambiam 12:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * And the South Sea Bubble? I just read a reference to that. DonnanZ (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer to the question. --Lambiam 12:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * No, it's another one of historical (and financial) interest. DonnanZ (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I observe that no answer is forthcoming. --Lambiam 05:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Just noting that Donnanz did, as he suggested above that he might, remove various named roads from the category (e.g., , , ), evidently in an attempt to make them less findable and reduce the chances of someone noticing and RFDing any that don't meet CFI. This is disruptive editing, IMO. I noticed this while (re)categorizing some named roads. - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * In the light of developments, the "disruptive editing" was adding the category in the beginning. DonnanZ (talk) 14:24, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Tsk. I’ve removed the non-idiomatic road senses from, , and as required by WT:CFI. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I revised, as the road is an essential part of the etymology. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I noticed him doing that (even shortly before he said he might), but we always have the archive of my original RFD to refer to, so I didn't object. &mdash; excarnateSojourner (talk &middot; contrib) 09:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If the category is not used in the first place, your task is much more difficult. DonnanZ (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Failed as no figurative sense has been found despite more than a month of discussion. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)