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. «»Who?¿?^meta 07:23, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is a duplicate of Category:Bloggers and should be deleted as such. Hall Monitor 20:34, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Anything meant by this that isn't the same as Category:Bloggers is POV/original research. Dystopos 21:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete CalJW 00:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV. Megapixie 01:24, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as POV; speedy as unnecessary duplication of existing category if possible. Bearcat 06:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a speedy. Might be interesting to try constructing a speedy criterion for it, though. -Splash^talk 02:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was "speedy", it only took 8 days to do, 8 days is fast. :) «»Who?¿?^meta 07:23, 20 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 07:21, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An overly-specific category, and misleadingly named as these people are not Irish, but Americans of Irish origin. Category:Chicagoans already exists. JW 12:12, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Piccadilly 13:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. If they're of Irish ancestry, then the proper name for the Cat would be Category:Irish-Americans of Chicago 12.73.194.194 19:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the category is a bad precedent anyway. What about German-Americans of New York or Italian-Americans of Detroit, or how about Londoners of Irish descent? The possibilities are endless. JW 20:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CalJW 00:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as said above bad precedent, leading to endless possibilities. should definitely be made a list. - Mayumashu 01:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete most ethnic subcats. -Splash^talk 02:10, 15 October 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. «»Who?¿?^meta 07:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename principally because of the abbreviation. Note however, from Royal Society of Arts, that such is not the full name of the Society which is the Royal Society for the encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce. The article says that the Society itself uses either the abbreviation or its true full name. Nevertheless, the Society is almost never known by its (archaic) full name in the UK and common usage, the Manual of Style and the existing title of the main article would dictate that we don't either. -Splash^talk 02:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Amend as suggested. Piccadilly 13:55, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Amend. Neither the Returned Servicemen's Association nor the Republic of South Africa has "fellows". Grutness...wha? 00:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 15:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:17, 14 October 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. Naming conventions candidate. «»Who?¿?^meta 07:17, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Establish "Casinos in foo" as the convention for by-country subcats of Category:Casinos at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) and rename as follows (originally nominated as speedies). -- Rick Block (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Casinos of Australia --> Category:Casinos in Australia Vegaswikian 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Casinos of Canada --> Category:Casinos in Canada Vegaswikian 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Casinos of New Zealand --> Category:Casinos in New Zealand Vegaswikian 06:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. CalJW 00:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. JW 16:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:18, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and establish per nom. -Splash^talk 02:10, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. E Pluribus Anthony 03:11, 17 October 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 all with special exception to Yukon. «»Who?¿?^meta 07:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merrily moving the standardization bandwagon to its next stop in the magical world of Canadian politics.

• Category:Canadian federal political parties → Category:Federal political parties in Canada

...per Foo in Bar standard used for political parties already

• Category:Alberta political parties → Category:Provincial political parties in Alberta
• Category:British Columbia political parties → Category:Provincial political parties in British Columbia
• Category:Manitoba political parties → Category:Provincial political parties in Manitoba
• Category:New Brunswick political parties → Category:Provincial political parties in New Brunswick
• Category:Newfoundland and Labrador political parties → Category:Provincial political parties in Newfoundland and Labrador
• Category:Nova Scotia political parties → Category:Provincial political parties in Nova Scotia
• Category:Ontario political parties → Category:Provincial political parties in Ontario
• Category:Prince Edward Island political parties → Category:Provincial political parties in Prince Edward Island
• Category:Quebec political parties → Category:Provincial political parties in Quebec
• Category:Saskatchewan political parties → Category:Provincial political parties in Saskatchewan
• Category:Yukon political parties → Category:Territorial political parties in the Yukon

...again per standards, projected downwards onto subnational entities. Note the addition of the "Provincial" modifier—I think this is an important clarfying term missing from the current naming regime, as the province-specific categories in question already consciously exclude federal parties even if they're identified with only one particular province. (Bloc Québécois, for instance, is NOT presently in the Quebec political parties category, but the federal one, where it should stay) Those here who might be used to arrangements in the US/UK/Aus etc. where there are much fuzzier distinctions between national and subnational parties should note that Canada has an abberant (by the standards of most federations) divide between organizations active at various levels of government. -The Tom 01:21, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 05:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Spinboy, you seem to be rather fond of opposing the most minor of changes without giving any sort of reason whatsoever. Your choice, of course, but I can't say I get it. -The Tom 12:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Spinboy should also be aware that WP:GAFD provides for pure votes without reasons to be discounted. He should also remember that, eventually, people will think he is trying to make some point or other and will come to wonder what it might be. -Splash^talk 14:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, we know what his point is; it's that standardization is a priori invalid and who-really-gives-a-hoot-anyway. Bearcat 05:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I object because I think it's needless busywork that's just plain stupid. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 18:35, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. Piccadilly 13:54, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as proposed. -Splash^talk 14:39, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator CalJW 00:37, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as proposed. --maclean25 01:17, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as proposed. Especially important to include the "provincial" signifier. Bearcat 05:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 00:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• 'rename all standardization. Youngamerican 05:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed, but replace '...The Yukon' with '...Yukon (Territory)'. (I also suppose there should be Category:Provincial political parties in Canada, which would include all of provincial topics above?) E Pluribus Anthony 02:08, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Provincial and territorial political parties in Canada, in fact.  :) A big ugh to ...Yukon (Territory), though. There seems to be near unanimity in Canadian English to scrap the "Territory" suffix the same way that people don't say "Alberta province" or even "the Province of New Brunswick" in common parlance (this has been hastened by the prevalence of "Nunavut" rather than "Nunavut Territory"). The overriding dispute is between "of the Yukon" and "of Yukon". Our (sole?) Yukoner Wikipedian has thoughts on the matter, and the Yukon government has in the past articulated differing thoughts, and we balmy southerners differnt ones still, so it's been a bit up in the air. -The Tom 02:52, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not the sole Yukoner, there are at least two others currently writing: one mainly on dog-sledding and dogs, which I think is rather appropriate, and the other is our perennial Christian Heritage party candidate. Even though I (along with the majority of Yukoners, I suspect) have a strong personal preference for "the Yukon", others feel equally as strongly that the article should not be used in the teritory's name. So it is a POV issue. One of these days, a petty-minded nit-picky bureaucrat bureaucrat will slap a NPOV tag on the usage with the article, or some broad-minded intelligent true Yukoner and Canadian will slap one on a category missing the article. :-) I have argued this in other votes, but the consensus has been to ignore my arguments. FWIW, my argument is that we should use adjectival nouns rather than "of foo" or "in foo" for Canadian provinces and teritories. But the consensus has been to slavishly follow a convention that has been established for countries (where it makes eminent sense), and apply it to sub-national entities, where it doesn't always work. Anyway, this my last comment on this since you all choose to ignore me & I'll go off & edit articles. Luigizanasi 03:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Thanks for the information; I was merely citing a potential faux pas and alternatives. OK: ...Yukon, then; not '...the Yukon'. (If it helps any, the Oxford Guide to Canadian English Usage indicates a preference for the (simple) former.) :) E Pluribus Anthony 02:59, 17 October 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.