The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 22:38, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of abbreviation, conventional form for structures and translation into British English Carina22 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Carina22 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu
• Rename Osomec 13:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Deano 22:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. Martin 22:37, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to remove abbreviation. Most of these have been done now. Sumahoy 19:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Looks better to me. Choalbaton 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Carina22 20:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Bkwillwm 23:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu
• Rename per nom Deano 22:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename as Category:United States National Historic Landmarks K1Bond007 03:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy as disputed:

• Comment: I would suggest Category:United States national historic landmarks -- Ze miguel 09:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's an official designation so it should remain capitalised. See National Historic Landmark. Rhollenton 02:15, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Sumahoy 19:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Choalbaton 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed, though to me Category:National Historic Landmarks of the United States sounds preferable. siafu 00:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Interstate Highway System K1Bond007 03:46, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Failed due to lack of consensus on whether the "U.S." should be included somehow. As "Interstate Highway System" is a proper name (the main reason I'm taking this here, as system is currently lowercase), and no other country has an Interstate Highway System, the U.S. is not required. If this fails again for lack of consensus I will perform the move manually. SPUI (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Category:Interstate Highway System is a more concise title and is a proper noun. Otherwise it should technically be: Category:Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways—what a mouthful! But seriously, go with the former. Removed some of my corny comments—chalk it up to a failed attempt at levity. RlyehRising18:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC) [reply]
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 20:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Choalbaton 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using U.S. I agree with the caps, but Mexico does have an interstate highway system... --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 18:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)`[reply]
  • They may have a system of interstate highways, but they don't have a system of Interstate Highways. --SPUI (talk) 22:09, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but for the people who can't quite understand the capitalization difference, we should have the disambiguation. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If there's possible confusion, say so on the category page. --SPUI (talk) 22:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I noticed that Category:U.S. Interstate Highway system is a sub-category of Category:Roads in the United States, so I would argue that U.S. is redundant. BTW, for the record—and for what it's worth—I looked at a roadmap of Mexico and the map legend indicates that their interstate-type roads are called Federal Highways or Carreteras nacionales (though my high school Spanish may be a little rusty). -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 01:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Interstate Highway System (United States of America) 132.205.45.148 20:11, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are IP addresses allowed to vote? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 03:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is supposed to be what? Darwinek 16:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A category of people born between 1964 and 1979, a.k.a. Generation Xers or Gen-Xers for short. The category allows for easier finding of information listed by name whereas the article List of Generation Xers is listed by the year they were born. --Bushido Hacks 16:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete absurd category. Not only is the choice of period very arbitrary, but the category would only be a merge of Category:1964 births to Category:1979 births. These are already unwieldly large themselves, so... go figure. -- Jao 17:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Enormously broad, amorphous, and completely unhelpful categorization. --NormanEinstein 18:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 18:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Jao Carina22 19:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sumahoy 19:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! There is no use for this category, it is not helpful at all. NuclearFunk 23:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There's still debate at the Generation X article over what years are correct, and it has had a POV warning on it for some time because of this. This category only adds more POV to Wikipedia. -- LGagnon 23:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is that between '64 and '79 inclusive or exclusive? Categorizing by "generation" is a bad idea all around. siafu 00:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should I revert the changes that I made this morning? --Bushido Hacks 01:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What changes did you make this morning? If it has something to do with this cat, I would imagine that it's not up to me, but instead up to the consensus of this vote. siafu 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - stupid name, stupid category. Deano 17:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it's basically a merge of 1966 births to 1979 births. if you wanted to see a list of gen xers, just go to 1960-1970s births! --User:Sevensouls 14:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Useless. wknight94 00:56, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Halarious. 71.131.40.171 20:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:British films K1Bond007 03:48, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Category:British films. There aren't separate film industries in England, Scotland and Wales. There is one British film industry, largely based in and around London, but it draws on talent from around Britain and makes films around the UK and elsewhere. Most of the "Scottish" films were made by English companies and English film makers; so The Wicker Man, I Know Where I'm Going!, Whisky Galore!, The Maggie, etc are all English productions if we want to be pedantic. Trying to separate into English films and Scottish films is not really a good idea, and throws up the possibility of having to create Welsh films, Northern Irish films, Anglo-Scots films, etc. JW 10:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Could you please nominate these separately? They are not equals. If you nominate the English category I will vote to delete it. Carina22 19:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC) Merge both as per Valiantis below. Carina22 13:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If you follow that logic, then there is no such thing as a "British film industry". Whisky Galore was written by a Scot, filmed in Scotland, and performed by Scottish actors: it is a Scottish film. Equally, there are hundreds of notable English films. Both cats are subcats of Category:British films, so they are still classified as being part of the "British film industry".--Mais oui! 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back into Category:British films as per nom. Whisky Galore! may have been written and directed by Scots and had many Scots in its cast, but it was made by Ealing Studios which last time I checked was in England. It is generally spoken about as an Ealing Comedy along with films like Passport to Pimlico which has been put into the English films cat (surely it should be Burgundian :)). I am not sure what point is served by having these two films in two different nationality cats other than a nationalist one (be it Scots or English nationalist) - which would make such a classification POV pretty much by definition. Some of the other films currently in the cat demonstrate the questionable nature of trying to assign a Scottish nationality to a film - e.g. Journey to the Center of the Earth (1959 film), the work of an American director, made by an American studio, based on a French novel and with a credited cast [1] composed entirely of Englishmen, Americans and an Icelander. It is partly set in Scotland (though primarily set in Iceland and at the centre of the Earth). I could continue in this vein with other films in both the Scottish and English categories. Valiantis 01:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Discussion here and elsewhere has demonstrated to me rather convincingly to me that these categories are not clearly seperable. siafu 03:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge English categories should be restricted to places, buildings, people and not much else. Osomec 13:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for reasons stated by others. Rhollenton 15:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge --- per nom. 209.202.119.248 15:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. It would just lead to edit wars like the one we've had at Father Ted The JPS 16:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:British films

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename all K1Bond007 03:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't put together the long promised complete list of the national "Transportation" categories which should be amended to "Transport" to reflect local usage (they were nearly all created by Americans, many of them by the same person,. and he has said that he doesn't have a problem with them being amended where appropriate). But prompted by the nomination below, here are a few:

• Category:Transportation in Pakistan --> Category:Transport in Pakistan
• Category:Transportation in Bangladesh --> Category:Transport in Bangladesh
• Category:Transportation in Finland --> Category:Transport in Finland
• Category:Transportation in Norway --> Category:Transport in Norway
• Category:Transportation in Sweden --> Category:Transport in Sweden
• Category:Transportation in Denmark --> Category:Transport in Denmark
• Category:Transportation in Iceland --> Category:Transport in Iceland

Pakistan and Bangladesh are Commonwealth countries and their categories should use Commonwealth English like category:Transport in India and Category:Transport in Sri Lanka. The Nordic countries are virtually bi-lingual and they use mainly British English. Finland, Norway and Denmark all have a Ministry of Transport not a Ministry of Transportation. [2][3][4]. Sweden has a Ministry of Communications instead of one of Transport or Transportation, but it lists transport as one of its responsibilities [5]. Iceland also has a Ministry of Communications, but it has produced the blockbusting publication "Proposal for a national transport policy 2003-2014." Rename all CalJW 09:23, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Neutrality^talk 18:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all I note that the above vote is by an American, and that he doesn't bother to give a reason for imposing American usage in this case. Carina22 19:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all especially Pakistan and Bangladesh. Sumahoy 19:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Choalbaton 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No rename (keep) K1Bond007 03:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transport in Helsinki is a subcat of Category:Transportation in Finland. Are you thinking what I'm thinking? I'm thinking rename for consistency... Grutness...wha? 05:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • belay this debate until the outcome of the Transportation by country debate becomes settled. Whichever way it goes there should be consistency here. Grutness...wha? 22:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is also a subcategory of category:Transport by city. Finland is virtually an English speaking country and it has a Ministry of Transport and Communications not Transportation. Like almost all the national transportation categories this one was created by an American. I will nominate it for renaming. CalJW 08:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Neutrality^talk 18:27, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose In line with the above nomination. Carina22 19:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As it isn't an English speaking country, the policy is that it should remain in variant of English chosen by its creator. Sumahoy 19:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above vote on rename of Category:Transportation in Finland. siafu 00:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment changing nomination - see above. Grutness...wha? 22:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is there anyone from Finland weighing in on this issue? Wouldn't they be able to weigh in on whether Finnish people prefer "Transport" or "Transportation"? wknight94 01:08, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 03:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelt, format for schools is normally "Schools in Foo". N.B. Academies in this context are a newish education wheeze in England - state schools with backing from private money. I plan on adding a stub at Academy (England) as there doesn't appear to be a generic article although several pages have been created for individual schools. See City Academy (though this term is now out of date).Valiantis 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 02:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - doesn't really seem to make a difference really, so yeah go for it. The stub template would be good... perhaps you could muster one for each individual school type (i.e. grammar/comprehensive/public/prep/primary etc.)... I would do it myself but I have no idea how. Deano 10:50, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Neutrality^talk 18:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's a pity the new name is so vague, but it may become better known over time. Carina22 19:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Result of the debate: delete - Izehar 17:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is pushing the whole "Wikipedians by field of interest" thing a bit too far. Let's keep it clean and encyclopedic. 86.133.53.111 00:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Utter nonsense. Soltak | Talk 00:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Soltak. Jokes can be placed in the userpage, not as categories. Deckiller 00:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If I could see any evidence that this was a cat for users with an interest in writing main namespace articles about Wikipedia, then I'd say "keep". But I can't. Valiantis 01:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CalJW 02:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neutrality^talk 18:28, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Carina22 19:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Why? Is it a romantic category, or more general? Actually I don't care. Choalbaton 20:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What about Category:Kinky Wikipedians interested in Nude Wikipedians. Or Category:Pederastic Wikipedians interested in...—let's not go there! In seriousness, the second "wikipedians" should be capitalized; hence, violation of naming convention is a good enough reason to delete this particular category.
  -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 20:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Is this to be a subcat of Category:Wikipedians seeking love? siafu 00:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Obvious and already stated reasons. However, thank you for amusing me. Bentley Banana 0230, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep K1Bond007 03:41, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I'd put this up, not sure of the logic in terms of it being on 'Banks by Country', should it be deleated/made a subcat of Banks of the United States? I guess Puerto Rico must have come up before? Ian3055 00:22, 17 December 2005 (UTC) (CoI:wrt:HSBC)[reply]

• Delete. There's only one bank in this category. It shouldn't even be a subcategory; just place it in the United States category until 3-4+ banks in Puerto Rico are developed. Deckiller 00:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Most of the other Puerto Rican categories are in the "by country" categories, as are those for a number of other dependencies and territories. CalJW 02:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. If Bermuda and the Falkland Islands qualify for the "by country" category, then surely Puerto Rico does too. Hell, they have an olympic team, so they count as far as I'm concerned. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Puerto Rico is not an integral part of the U.S. Sumahoy 19:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless or until Puerto Rico votes to changes its status vis a vis the United States. siafu 00:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.