< November 12	November 14 >

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 11:18, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of abbreviation and improvement to the format (which will then tie in with the lead article First Lady of the United States). I am an advocate of the use of "American" but I deliberately left this one to be dealt with separately. This category is for people who have occupied a specific position, namely the wives of the Presidents of the United States. It may be that governor's wives and the like have also been referred to as "First Lady" at some point, and the alternative category name would be less clear than the one I have proposed. CalJW 00:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Postdlf 04:28, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Just one comment, The use of Ameriacan to mean of the United States of America is wrong, and likely to annoy Canadians and other people in North America.
  • We have been through this. It is not wrong and it is supported by many Canadian users. Please sign your comments in future. CalJW 09:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I think there's a demonstrable consensus that categories "of government" in the United States use the form "of the United States". Hiding talk 11:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Carina22 14:17, 14 November 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 --Kbdank71 16:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This duplicates Category:Jewish Wikipedians, as (just by probability, and certainly according to Orthodox Jewish belief that everyone is descendant from Adam) almsot every Jewish Wikipedian is a Jewish Wikipedian of famous descent. Delete. —msh210 21:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Looks like a vanity category to me. -- Mkill 22:18, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Famous descent doesn't help to produce a better wikipedia. CalJW 00:15, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless category which encourages self-promotion. Wikipedia is meant to be an encyclopedia; therefore, the content, not the contributors, should be its primary focus. This is not Friendster. David Hoag 06:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The creator can listify it and move it to her/his user space. — Instantnood 08:25, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vanity. --Vizcarra 06:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gilgamesh he 22:41, 16 November 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 nominated --Kbdank71 16:30, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per rest of Category:Political office-holders by country. Note that this adds a needed bit of precision, as someone crunching third-quarter beetroot production quotas in an office building in Brussels could be considered an "EU official." The Tom 21:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• When exactly did "political office-holders" get decided as a standard? And shouldn't it be "...of the European Union"? Postdlf 04:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• comment what makes the nominator thinks the category is only for political office holders i.e. elected meps, it could mean unelected people also. Arniep 23:41, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given its current name, it could in time, yes, and there'd be nothing inherently awful about that (although I'd question its overall relevance, as we don't have "officials" categories merging political office-holders and apolitical bureaucrats for any other country or IO—the UN's a slight exception, because its figures could be seen as both political and apolitical). But right now, the cat supercats cats of political figures, and is filed under a supercat of political figures, so I say lock it into a useful and consistent form. The Tom 23:52, 15 November 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 nominated --Kbdank71 16:34, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, there are no non-Japanese Samurai leaders (forget that Tom Cruise film, it's fiction). Then, all Samurai that are not leaders or otherwise important won't be listed in Wikipedia anyway, so why not list them all in Category:Samurai. Third, we also have Category:Shoguns, and could create the much more useful Category:Daimyo. Mkill 20:25, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Should it be samurais and daimyos? — Instantnood 08:24, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. "Samurai" is the plural. CalJW 08:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm a little bit confused. If samurai is already plural, then why shoguns? — Instantnood 11:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The plural of sheep is sheep. The English language has many irregularies. Carina22 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there have been non-Japanese samurai leaders, if you consider Japanese as an ethnic group rather than a citzenship. There has been atleast one Englishman who became a daimyo (whom the novel Shogun is loosely based on). There have also been non-ethnic Japanese East-Asians, particularly RyuKyu-tian (Okinawan) and Ainu, who have become Samurai leaders. 132.205.45.148 18:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any notable samurai who are not leaders? — Instantnood 08:25, 16 November 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 consensus --Kbdank71 16:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category should be deleted: there is only one Hungarian astronaut in history and currently there are no other Hungarian astronauts slated to go into space. It seems rather silly to have a category for only one person, particularly if the only astronaut in it is already in Category:European astronauts. Andromeda321 19:53, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete as above. Arniep 20:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is nothing wrong with one item categories as part of a larger scheme as they make articles easier to find. Category:European astronauts does not belong in Category:Hungarian people by occupation. CalJW 22:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Should we add Category:Iranian astronauts, leaving it unpopulated? It does fit into the scheme, and it tells the user that there are no Iranian astronauts, just as the category in question here fits into the scheme, and tells the user there is only one Hungarian astronaut. That's the only reason to have this category, instead of categorizing the article in question under Category:European astronauts and category:Hungarian people. —msh210 23:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course not. There is an article to read in this case. Smaller countries may have dozens or hundreds of imprecisely categorised articles if some arbitary lower limit is opposed, which will help no one. The category system is a navigation tool and it should be an accurate one. If any category is to go it should be category:European astronauts, which is non-standard. Europe isn't a country and it doesn't have a manned space program.CalJW 00:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not true as there is the European Space Agency which regularly gets a seat on ISS missions. The European Astronaut category lists astronauts/cosmonauts who flew with NASA and the Russians too, however. Andromeda321 00:58, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So it's an inaccurate and inappropriate category. CalJW 08:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion Carina22 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep although as far as I know, most were cosmonauts, not astronauts. --MacRusgail 14:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• COMMENT' should this even be called astronaut? Spacefarer seems better, to aviod astronaut/cosmonaut/spationaut/taikonaut arguments, and splitting Europeans between Shuttle launched versus Soyuz launched... 132.205.45.148 18:13, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come off it. What sort of word is "Spacefarer"? Not a normal English one for sure. CalJW 11:58, 18 November 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 consensus --Kbdank71 16:43, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Irish Scots" is not an appropriate term for all the people in Scotland who have Irish ancestry. 90%+ of people in Scotland have Irish ancestry of some sort or other, there is nothing to suggest which, if any, of them consider themselves to be "Irish Scots". The selection of people in this category is haphazard. Some are Irish-born, others simply have an Irish sounding name, others have tenuous links such as "possible Irish grandfather".82.13.187.66 19:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested in the source for your statement 90%+ of Scottish people have Irish ancestry, it really must have been an extensive piece of research I'd love to read it...Arniep 20:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CommentYou're right, it's just my impression. I didn't do any survey and it would be impossible anyway. However it is based on logic. I know you've only generally included Catholics with Irish surnames in your category (I don't know why), but there were just as many Irish non-Catholics with Scottish names who moved back to Scotland at the same time. Originally of course the Gaels came from Ireland. Over the years all these people have intermarried. As a result, I suspect that there are very few people in Scotland except very recent immigrants, who don't have either Irish Protestant, Irish Catholic or Gael ancestry (but I accept it's POV). Personally I view "Irish-Scots" as an identity, which some people - such as Gillespie - do subscribe to (but we'd need evidence for it to include them). Otherwise a "Scots with Irish ancestry" category is more apt IMO. 82.13.187.66 04:37, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I said below the naming of the category gives the wrong impression, also it requires some close descent not something far in the mists of time. Arniep 23:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

there aren't any Irish born people as you claimed Arniep 23:51, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is: Keith Michael Patrick Cardinal O'Brien.--Mais oui! 00:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've moved him. Arniep 02:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

MacLaverty is Irish born too, although being Irish-born and living in Scotland is specified in the description so I'm not sure why you would remove either of them. 82.13.187.66 06:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment Fair enough, but I can't agree with the inclusion of Irish born people in this category as when I included Irish born people in the Irish British people category, it was strongly objected to which is why I created Category:Irish people in Great Britain so these people should go in there or it's Northern Ireland sub cat. Arniep 12:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as this may be perceived as a label which people may not identify with. Arniep 20:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (or as second choice: Rename as per User:Arniep, to Category:People of Irish descent in Scotland) There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the category. The problem is that far too many people were being added to it with zero justification. I tried to warn User:Arniep (above) against putting people in this cat too lightly, but he chose to ignore the advice (see Wikipedia talk:Scottish Wikipedians' notice board). I was particularly concerned by his inclusion of the First Minister of Scotland, Jack McConnell, and I deleted this cat from that article, but Arniep immediately added it back in. We must stricly enforce the standard Wikipedia:Categories rules for these ethnic cats: biographies should only go in these cats if they are referred to in the main text of the article. I fear that if we delete Category:Irish-Scots then User:Arniep, or someone else, is just going to re-create it with an even more artificial and contrived title, à la his two creations last week Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain and its partner category (I kid you not): Category:Irish people in Great Britain.--Mais oui! 21:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Re: I fear that if we delete Cat:Irish-Scots then [someone] is just going to re-create it with an even more artificial and contrived title." Then it's speediable under CSD G4 - although the examples you gave aren't recreations, they mean different things. Not a reason to keep. - SoM 17:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Those two British supercats ARE recreations: Arniep actually won the Cfd vote to keep his newly created Category:Irish British people, and then decided to promptly re-name them, without consulting Cfd. (That now-empty category is still floating about out there in the Wikipedia ether with no categorisation.) If the Scottish cat goes then I will be nominating the British supercats for deletion too.--Mais oui! 18:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• comment Sorry, but I feel you are getting ridiculously upset about this. I acknowledged the Irish British category was badly named as it is perceived as a label, so I cfded it (it is still open for votes for deletion, see below). I created the new categories as they were accurately named and placed no label on anyone. The category Category:Irish people in Great Britain is for people born on the island of Ireland who contributed significantly to life in Great Britain, which had to be created as a separate category due to your objection to these people being included in the Irish British category. What is your objection to pointing out that Oscar Wilde, Edmund Burke, and Richard Brinsley Sheridan have contributed significantly to life in Great Britain? Arniep 18:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to Mais-Oui - that'd be a move rather than a recreation then.
• Incidentally, I could be persuaded to change my vote if someone proposed a rename to Category:Scottish people of Irish descent. The current name's irritating ambiguity and assumption is at least half the reason I voted to delete. - SoM 18:39, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am in favour of that or Category:People of Irish descent in Scotland but can you change a delete to a rename? It was nommed by an anon ip originally. Arniep 02:12, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. — Instantnood 08:23, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Nominally, I'm "Irish-Scots". I don't consider myself that way, I just consider myself "Scottish," and the use of hypenated ethnic-country tags like "African-American" just doesn't happen in the UK any roads. - SoM 13:31, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per SoM Carina22 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly does happen in the UK! I've seen it frequently used, although normally by media and authorities rather than the public. --MacRusgail 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe category text says "not to be confused with Scots-Irish" [i.e. Ulster-Scots]. In fact, Scots-Irish is the term normally used in Scotland, although you really would struggle to find "frequent" use of either term in the media or anywhere.82.13.187.66 16:08, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep although rename if appropriate. I would prefer that the category was used for people like James Connolly, Bernard MacLaverty and Sean Connery who have obvious connections to both countries. --MacRusgail 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not sure that Sean Connery has any more connection with Ireland than anyone else in the list. Contrary to what it says on his wiki, I've read his biographies and you have to go back to the 1840s to find his Irish ancestry.
    • Comment - Sean Connery used to market himself on his Irishness in some of his earlier features, and took the name "Sean", whereas his birthname is "Thomas"/Tom. --MacRusgail 12:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • His middle name is Sean. He was called Sean as a child - again read his biographies. Anyway he clearly has Irish ancestry so I wouldn't have a problem with him being in the category described by arniep elsewhere. 82.13.187.66 16:26, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Scottish people of Irish descent as it is we should not label people Irish-Scots if they do not identify as that. Arniep 18:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• No, just delete and listify. A category is unnecessary. The more words it takes to describe the relationship, and the more ambiguous and obscure the classification, the more an annotated list article is appropriate. Postdlf 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename. Are anonymous editors allowed to vote? Just checking. --Vizcarra 06:06, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes. But it may have an effect on how seriously others take your argument. I accept that. But I won't be registering. :-) It's not a vote in the traditional sense anyway, so just saying "keep" or "delete" without any argument is a bit pointless and will probably just be ignored. 82.13.187.66 06:28, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

actually, from discussions with page admins these cfds are judged exactly by numbers of votes, whether these is any sensible comment doesn't seem to be taken into consideration. Arniep 13:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I've proposed a rename to Category:Scottish people of Irish descent in the header, please change vote if appropriate. Arniep 17:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Change to new name. Vulturell 17:45, 15 November 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Category:U.S. inventors (or Category:American inventors, once that renaming is completed). This is unnecessary subcategorization that hinders navigation. Eli Whitney, for example, is only categorized in this, so he can't even be found from the main inventors category; his article doesn't even mention Connecticut aside from the category. One may say that we should just make the correction, and if he is to be put in the CT-specific category, also put him in the broader American category. However, as long as this subcategory exists, its conceptual lack of clarity (what is a Connecticut inventor, after all? one who invents in Connecticut? one born there who invents elsewhere? one who merely lived there at some time during his life?) and implied subdivision of Category:American inventors will inevitably cause poor results like this. Nothing is gained from keeping it. If someone wishes to create a list of inventors associated with Connecticut, and annotate the relationship, by all means, do so, and I would likely vote keep on an AfD. But this category should go.
It is presently the only inventor-U.S. state subcategory, btw. It should be the last. Postdlf 17:41, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Carina22 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I agree with Postdlf, not every U.S. category need be by state. Lou I 20:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Merge → Delete. I think it is better to have List of Connecticut inventors rather than this category. Courtland 00:51, 19 November 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 --Kbdank71 16:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the usefulness of this being a category. If this stands then what stops Category:Musical groups named after people or Category:Musical groups named after animals? RedWolf 17:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. Postdlf 17:42, 13 November 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 consensus --Kbdank71 16:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to far shorter and easier to use name. use of the abbreviation 'MPs' is very common in Canada and is already being used in category names for MPs by party (such as Category:Liberal Party of Canada MPs) if this renaming is voted in i m willing nominate the sames cats for each Canadian province/territory -Mayumashu 12:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm normally not overly concerned about abbreviations in category names, but I am concerned about "MP". I only learned what it meant from seeing it on Wikipedia. In the U.S., at least, the most immediate connotation of "MP" is "military police," and the fuller designations of "members of parliament" or "parliament members" are used. Postdlf 17:46, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There was a significant amount of debate that went into the adoption of the current standard. The Tom 18:56, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please, approximately on what date did the debate occur? (and presumably on this page) there are cats named Category:British MPs, Category:Scottish MPs, etc. so we would need to rename those cats then for consistency in naming. (i hope about supposed potential confusion in that someone would think an Albera MP works at Whitehall. any page with an Alberta MP label describes clearly that the individual is a member of the CANADIAN house, not the British one. i m sure though that this not a reason to oppose this nomination) -Mayumashu 03:22, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't think it occurred here, but I recall the general Canadian politics braintrust had a huddle and for whatever reason agreed on what we have now. Might want to float this one over on WP:CWNB The Tom 23:55, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. The bits of discussion we had were here in Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/discussion/Archive 3#Category:Members of the Canadian House of Commons back in June. I don't think we ever discussed the specific format of names or alternatives. User:Bearcat came up with the names, created the categories and, as far as I know, did all the categorisation. Luigizanasi 06:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sort of support. I like "Foo MPs" better, but to avoid accusations of Commonwealth systemic bias, we might consider "Foo Members of Parliament". My reservations are that: (1) If we change one we should change them all and (2) it would be a lot of work to change them all as the categories include not only current, but historical MPs. Also, we need to consider the territories, should it be "Canadian Territorial MPs"? Luigizanasi 06:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

comment then how about Category:Alberta Members of Parliament? but i think it s completely unnecessary - as long as there s a explanation at the top of the cat page stating what 'MP' stands for - Canadian English should be used on pages about Canada. btw, the content of the Canadian historical MPs cat page is being / too be shifted to these provincial cat pages on this cat page -Mayumashu 15:00, 16 November 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 23:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A selection of categories which missed out on the recent mass renaming of sport by country categories to the "in" form:

• Category:Argentine boxing --> Category:Boxing in Argentina
• Category:Brazilian motorsport --> Category:Motorsport in Brazil
• Category:French motorsport --> Category:Motorsport in France
• Category:German motorsport --> Category:Motorsport in Germany
• Category:Italian motorsport --> Category:Motorsport in Italy
• Category:Japanese baseball --> Category:Baseball in Japan
• Category:Japanese motorsport --> Category:Motorsport in Japan
• Category:Mexican baseball --> Category:Baseball in Mexico
• Category:Polish handball --> Category:Handball in Poland
• Category:Polish volleyball --> Category:Volleyball in Poland
• Category:South Korean baseball --> Category:Baseball in South Korea
• Category:Turkish motorsport --> Category:Motorsport in Turkey

Rename all CalJW 05:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as per nom -Mayumashu 12:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. -- Reinyday, 17:12, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom. Carioca 23:22, 13 November 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 12:13, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This was overlooked in the recent mass renaming of rugby league categories to the "in" form. Rename CalJW 05:07, 13 November 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 23:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rugby union was missed in the recent mass renaming of the sports by country categories because Category:Rugby union by country didn't exist at the time.

• Category:Argentine rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in Argentina
• Category:Australian rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in Australia
• Category:French rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in France
• Category:Irish rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in Ireland
• Category:Italian rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in Italy
• Category:Japanese rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in Japan
• Category:New Zealand rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in New Zealand
• Category:South African rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in South Africa
• Category:English rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in England
• Category:Welsh rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in Wales
• Category:Scottish rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in Scotland

Rename all CalJW 04:58, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Mayumashu 12:22, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all fair play. Hiding talk 15:06, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Carioca 23:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - old name is ambiguous, i.e. does it refer to players of the code "rugby union in Scotland" or to the SRU which is an organisation/governing body (which plenty of RU players are not members of in Scotland). --MacRusgail 12:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It means "topics related to the sport 'rugby union' in the country known as 'Scotland'" The Tom 01:02, 16 November 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 22:58, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is clearly an emerging consensus to rename all of these in line with normal English usage. Unfortunately I missed the non-standard sportspeople categories in my group nomination of 2 days ago (see that for further arguments for standardisation).

• Category:U.S. chess players --> Category:American chess players
• Category:U.S. figure skaters --> Category:American figure skaters
• Category:U.S. racecar drivers --> Category:American racecar drivers
• Category:U.S. Formula One drivers --> Category:American Formula One drivers
• Category:United States soccer players --> Category:American soccer players
• Category:United States soccer coaches --> Category:American soccer coaches
• Category:U.S. speed skaters --> Category:American speed skaters
• Category:U.S. swimmers --> Category:American swimmers

Rename or merge all CalJW 04:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose--- Infrogmation 07:51, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Any reason in particular? Martin 09:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree consistency is a very good thing. Martin 09:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree for consistency and tidiness. Mayumashu 12:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Darwinek 13:13, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree per consensus and consistency. Hiding talk 15:05, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. -- Reinyday, 17:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom. Postdlf 17:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Carioca 23:21, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose Who thought up this crazy idea? Everybody in Central and South America considers the chess players in their country, the soccer players in their country and so on to be "American Chess players", "American soccer players" and so on. Sam Sloan 13:49, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

are you sure about that? Brazilians call Brazilian soccer players the English equivalent of 'Brazilian footballers', as do Mexicans of Mexican soccer players, etc. we re not describing the people of super-continental entities or whatever (the Americas) here and moreover the adjective 'American' is by far the most common one used to describe something of the United States -Mayumashu 11:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. The central and south Americans can decide the policies for the Spanish and Portuguese Wikipedias, but not for this wikipedia. Carina22 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE, to keep away from American ambiguities 132.205.45.148 18:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per consensus that American is suitably unambiguous for usage as "related to the United States of America". The Tom 01:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. /Slarre 21:57, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as proposed. Osomec 15:06, 20 November 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 --Kbdank71 15:47, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Singles by record label
• Category:Mute Records singles

The first category only has one subcat, the second, and it only has 5 entries. They can be merged to Category:BAND singles and Category:YYYY singles as per the recommendations at Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs (which makes no mention of this categorisation by record label). pfctdayelise 04:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as nominator. pfctdayelise 04:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. -- Reinyday, 17:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Carina22 14:17, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. Osomec 15:06, 20 November 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 merge to Category:Songs --Kbdank71 15:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Only has 4 entries. Arbitrary - not a useful categorisation. There is no article "List of self-titled songs" so I can't think who this category would be useful to. pfctdayelise 03:47, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & merge to its parent Category:Songs. pfctdayelise 03:48, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete * merge to Category:Songs. Postdlf 04:31, 14 November 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 merge to Category:Wikipedians in Quebec --Kbdank71 15:39, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge them one way or another. The note and history on Category:Wikipedians in Québec state its a "troublemaker" category and has one user. I understand it was for fun, but we don't need redundant categories. I would say they should goto the diacritics version, but don't really care which way it goes. «»Who?¿?^meta 01:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that's two users if you count the sub-category.

Urhixidur 05:23, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Québec. — Instantnood 06:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. I mean Category:Wikipedians in Québec to category:Wikipedians in Quebec. This and other pages containing words borrowed from other languages should be spelled with their proper anglicisation and English uses no accent marks. Québec is a French word, and Quebec, English, just as Roma is an Italian word and Rome is an English word. -Mayumashu 12:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Quebec per Mayumashu. While using the accent makes you feel all warm and fuzzy and culturally-sensitive inside, remember Québec = "KAY-bec" and Quebec ="KWUH-bec". It's simply incorrect to treat "Québec" as a general-English-usage word. If we keep the accent we should by all rights move to Category:wikipedians in Deutschland, Category:Wikipedians in Brasil etc. The Tom 21:19, 13 November 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.