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?¿? 03:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Nominated for speedy above. Obvious grammatical correction, but not speedy. Septentrionalis 21:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Hiding talk 19:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:33, 6 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 No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 03:52, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C. is the most common name for the city, District of Columbia is less common. Also, the current name is ungrammatical; it should be "Interstate highways in the District of Columbia". (And let's please not have the pedantic suggestion "Interstate highways in Washington, District of Columbia". Absolutely nobody uses that name for the city.) dbenbenn | talk 20:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is named for consistency with Category:Interstate highways in California, etc. We're talking about Interstate highways in the District, not the city. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs - count) 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"District of Columbia" is simply another name for the city that is commonly called "Washington, D.C.". The District and the city are identical objects. dbenbenn | talk 23:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for naming consistency and accuracy. (70.94.229.160 00:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Support This is a special case, and there is an overriding rule about common usage. Outside the U.S. many people are barely aware that the District of Colombia exists. CalJW 00:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  What rule for categories are you invoking? (SEWilco 04:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep as a supercat and for historical people. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP, do any cities have categories about what Interstates are in them? 132.205.45.148 18:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Washington, D.C. does. It's currently called Category:Interstate highways in District of Columbia. dbenbenn | talk 22:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't be facetious. So, from your evidence I can infer that no, no city has it's own interstates category. Therefore there is no reason to make one. 132.205.93.89 22:36, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the city of Washington and the district of Columbia ARE different entities. True, the city limits are coterminous with the borders of the district now, but the district is treated like a county in many respects, the next closest thing to a State for it. I refer to Rschen7754's reason for keeping it, as it retains consistency. Eric 01:31, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but only to insert "the", i.e. "in the District of Columbia". siafu 18:35, 6 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 No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 04:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Washington, D.C. is a city. The parent cat, Category:Cities in the United States, should be added to Category:Washington, D.C., and this category deleted. dbenbenn | talk 20:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Entries in parent category follow pattern "Cities in STATE". This subdivision of the U.S. happens to presently contain one city, but the District is the entity which is part of the U.S. (SEWilco 00:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment: It's apparent that the District and the city overlaps.. the same arguments to say Scotland is a region of the UK, or Scotland is a constituent country of the UK that contains only one region. Anyhow, if this category is kept, it should be renamed category:cities in the District of Columbia. — Instantnood 13:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP, the city and the district did not always overlap. 132.205.45.110 18:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Do you mean in some point of history the District is bigger (or smaller) than the city? — Instantnood 05:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  That is correct, the District of Columbia was bigger than Washington for a long time. All of the district was merged under one government only in 1871; up to that point Georgetown at least had its own mayor, etc. totally independent of the City of Washington. However, aside from Georgetown I can't think of another such former city. In any case, Keep. Christopher Parham (talk) 06:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Part of Alexandria, Virginia used to be in the District. (SEWilco 14:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  Texas used to be part of Mexico. Categories reflect current reality, not the way things used to be. dbenbenn | talk 22:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories do as they do. Current Reality says that there is such a thing called the "District of Columbia". 132.205.93.89 22:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to insert "the". Since Washington is presently the only city that occupies the entirety of the District, former cities in the District, such as Georgetown, Alexandia would better be categorised under a subcategory titled "former cities in the District of Columbia", or something like that. — Instantnood 07:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC) (modified 07:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename to insert "the", as above. siafu 18:38, 6 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 No consensus (no change). ∞Who?¿? 04:04, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Category:Images of Washington, District of Columbia. Twice deleted, twice recreated by User:SEWilco. (For what it's worth, I think a better name would be Category:Images of Washington, D.C..) dbenbenn | talk 20:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• merge both into Category:Images of Washington, D.C., and make the others soft redirects, purging every so often. Septentrionalis 21:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Category follows naming practice for parent Category:Images of United States, just as Category:Images of Texas is not Category:Images of TX, represents a state and contains separate entries for cities. User:Dbenbenn also presents own improper deletions of category as somehow being evidence of something other than Dbenbenn's behavior. See Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion#Dbenbenn Violations of CfD. (SEWilco 00:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • What naming practice do you mean exactly? Do you think that Category:Images of Washington, District of Columbia should be merged to Category:Images of District of Columbia? Neither version contains an abbreviation. dbenbenn | talk 00:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: An image of the city is not necessarily relevant to the District, just as Category:Images of San Antonio, Texas should not all be in Category:Images of Texas. However, Image:Alamo TX.jpg would seem to belong in both categories. (SEWilco 15:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep the city and the district did not always overlap 132.205.45.110 18:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but insert "the". siafu 18:46, 6 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 Keep. ∞Who?¿? 04:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates Category:Washington, D.C.. It has been deleted twice, and twice re-created by User:SEWilco. dbenbenn | talk 20:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Category has membership relevant (currently or historically) to the District and does not duplicate the city category. See the two categories. User:Dbenbenn also presents own improper deletions of category as somehow being evidence of something other than Dbenbenn's behavior. See Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion#Dbenbenn Violations of CfD. (SEWilco 00:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  "Does not duplicate"? That's objectively false: every article in Category:District of Columbia is in Category:Washington, D.C. or a subcategory. dbenbenn | talk 00:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: That falsehood is objectively false: not every article in Category:Washington, D.C. is in Category:District of Columbia. (SEWilco 15:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]

  Nope. Since Category:Washington, D.C. is a subcategory of Category:District of Columbia, every article in the former is part of the latter. dbenbenn | talk 22:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, if anything get rid of the city category. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a supercat and for historical people. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into city cat. as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP the city and the district did not always overlap. 132.205.45.148 18:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. siafu 18:58, 6 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?¿? 04:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Bosnian" isn't the right adjective (demonym) for Bosnia and Herzegovina - there are both Bosnian people and the Herzegovinian people, but we don't want to exclude either and instead group them by country. This is also normalization with other BiH category names - I would have renamed them both manually but there's quite a few so a bot will do it faster. --Joy [shallot] 19:10, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: And hope the region develops a shorter name for itself. (SEWilco 04:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
  • Unlikely :) --Joy [shallot]
• Support Hiding talk 19:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 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. ∞Who?¿? 04:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IMO British English-specific or American English-specific terminology for high level category naming should be avoided if possible. Suggest renaming this category to an unambiguous form ("racecourse" being an ambiguous term, at least in American English). IMO the question should not be "is this what you'd say", but "do you immediately comprehend this terminology"? Associated with this renaming, I propose renaming the subcats to the form "Horse racing tracks in foo" and adding this as the convention for such categories to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). If anyone thinks it's necessary we could add (soft) Categoryredirects for selected countries. -- Rick Block (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Australian racecourses → Category:Horse racing tracks venues
• Category:British racecourses → Category:Horse racing tracks venues in the United Kingdom
• Category:Racecourses in France → Category:Horse racing tracks venues in France

• Comment: "race track" is rather American-sounding, however. If we really want to want to toe the ambiguous line here, "horse racing facilities" or "horse racing venues" might be better -The Tom
• Oppose It is important to the global success of Wikipedia that Americans show sensitivity to local usage and there is a policy that Commonwealth and American English have equal status. Relentless uniformity is less important than calling things what there are called in the real world. There is little difference between this proposal and suggesting that category:Counties of England should be changed to category:States of England. CalJW 00:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Is "Horse racing venues" sufficiently neutral? Or, perhaps, we'd rather have it be "Places where horses compete against each by trying to go faster <in country>"? Please consider that imposing UK-English on the world is just as bad as imposing American-English. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I have not been trying to impose British English. You have taken the initiative and each time you have attempted to impose American English. I hope that you will be more careful after the "universities and colleges" debacle. However your amended proposal is acceptable in this case. Rename all Category:Horse racing venues in X. CalJW 05:20, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but change to Category:Horse racecourses (or something similar such as Category:Horse racing venues) to avoid American editors placing car racing venues in such categories. (SEWilco 04:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Proposal changed to "venues" per above comments. -- Rick Block (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Horse racecourses", which is clear and internationally-understood, AFAIAA. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 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 SPEEDY RENAME (theoretically, it's taken nearly a week!). -Splash^talk 15:51, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator got lazy and forgot to list this here, they want it renamed to Category:Ottawa city councillors. I oppose that. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• You oppose it why? Again, this is a case where there's a standard format expected by Wikipedia; the proposed move conforms with it and the existing category doesn't. Rename, or give us a good reason why this category should get a special exemption from the policy. Bearcat 18:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to standard format. (70.94.229.160 00:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename And please don't call me "lazy" for one slip up. I am the most active person in this section of Wikipedia. CalJW 00:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I oppose it because I think it's silly nit-picking. Ignore all rules. It may or may not be a standard format, but it's not wikipedia policy. File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  I apologize CalJW, I sholdn't have called you lazy, but you did forget to list it here. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: I fully favour skipping on the rules if there's a convincing reason to skip the rules. Is there a specific reason why "city councillors" has to keep its capitalization in the category name? Or is "this out clause exists, so I'm going to wave it around just because I can" the only reason you've got? Bearcat 04:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Two things, I was the nominator, and I certainly resent being accused of laziness—it's not listed here because it was listed as a speedy (further up the page) on account of it being purely capitalization-related. -The Tom 23:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy for capitalization. 68.251.91.22 19:00, 6 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?¿? 03:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a very enclyclopedic title. It does not match the category it is in (Crime in the United Kingdom) and it seems to exclude crimes committed by people who do not belong to the "underworld". I think it would be better to rename it Category:Crime in London, which is a more comprehensive title. Carina22 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, lest it be confused with the London Underground. siafu 23:45, 6 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. -Splash^talk 15:33, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the Politics of Canada discussion below. The following provincial categories need to be knocked into line.

• Category:Alberta elections → Elections in Alberta
• Category:Elections in British Columbia already standardized
• Category:Manitoba elections → Category:Elections in Manitoba
• Category:New Brunswick elections → Category:Elections in New Brunswick
• Category:Newfoundland elections → Category:Elections in Newfoundland and Labrador (lacks Labrador)
• Category:Nova Scotia elections → Category:Elections in Nova Scotia
• Category:Elections in Nunavut already standardized
• Category:Ontario elections → Category:Elections in Ontario
• Category:Prince Edward Island elections → Category:Elections in Prince Edward Island
• Category:Quebec general elections → Category:Elections in Quebec (aberrant "general")
• Category:Saskatchewan elections → Category:Elections in Saskatchewan

No Yukon cat yet, so we can dodge that bullet. -The Tom 15:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nominator Carina22 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator to follow standard patterns. (70.94.229.160 00:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 02:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per standard Wikipedia policy. Bearcat 04:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for same reasons as discussed in Canadian politics below. Luigizanasi 05:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Trying to retain exemptions from policy just because they were created in the early days of the category system just bogs things down. CalJW 23:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Waste of time to change every category, when it was fine before. --Cloveious 01:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per standard Wikipedia policy. --maclean25 02:09, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per standard Wikipedia policy. Mindmatrix 19:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:48, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Bhoeble 13:13, 8 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 KEEP. -Splash^talk 15:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Template already exist which contains the same information in a better easier to navigate format. Several West Virginian's are working improve and expand the Template now. --71Demon 14:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Duplicate template. The other template hasthe same information in a way that's easier to navigate. (Unsigned edit by 65.78.109.83)
• Keep There are state highway categories for Alabama, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia & Washington. West Virginia should logically have a state highways category too. Consistency is usually considered a good thing. Nboggs 15:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Conistancy is why is should be deleted because the template is consistant with US Highways, Interstate, and ADHS templates for other road systems. (Unsigned edit by 71Demon)
• Keep Templates do not replace categories. Carina22 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Quick Delete Template is easier to use and is consistant with US highway template. (Unsigned edit by 152.163.100.7)
• KEEP I'd like to point out that the Interstates and US highways use a category as well as a list. The template is useful with Interstates and US highways because it lists only primary highways. The WV template is not useful because it lists every single state highway WV has. (See debate at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#WV Highways for more). There is more consistency with other state highways if we use a category-list system... also another important distinction is that Interstates and US Highways are NOT state highways, whereas 96% of state highways use a list and category system. --Rschen7754 19:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Templates are in general NOT appropriate as replacements for a category. Although this cat may be sparsely populated right now, it is part of a hierarchy where other states have well-populated categories. Regarding the template, I see it as unnecessary, but I'm not going to vote against it because it doesn't really do much harm either. older≠wiser 21:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A category always trumps a template Soltak | Talk 21:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Even if the template is kept, the articles must be categorized some how. >: Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 21:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The cat should be included in the template. If the template is deleted, use ((otherarticles)) (Unsigned edit by Pmanderson)
• Keep: For consistency, following established pattern, and categorization needed. (SEWilco 04:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep per Rschen7754, Robywayne, et al. Nominator is also attempting to make a WP:POINT as retaliation (for lack of a better word) for his template being nominated for TFD. --Howcheng 15:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 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 SPEEDILY DELETED. -Splash^talk 15:30, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard category with the blurb "This category is for notable places in Belarus that don't have a better category yet". I have created the standard categories for Belarus and moved out the five articles which were here. Delete. CalJW 12:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not much else to say. -The Tom 15:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Carina22 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no problems with me. Zach (Sound Off) 04:36, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 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. -Splash^talk 15:29, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This does not follow the same convention as the other categories in category:Science and technology by country. Rename category:Science and technology in the Soviet Union. CalJW 12:18, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nominator. Carina22 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per convention. (SEWilco 05:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:49, 6 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 KEEP. Fractionally below the 'traditional' two-thirds, but after investigation by Hiding the debate is clear. Yodakii appears to want a completely different debate but doesn't offer a solution. -Splash^talk 15:28, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't they the same thing? Besides, the latter has many more articles than the former. They should be merged. Kamezuki 05:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge. The word "Manga" may be familiar to aficionados, but certainly not the general public. 12.73.195.97 14:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. I think Manga is reaching good enough general knowledge. TexasAndroid 14:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought Manga was something more specific, but then I don't know anything about comics. Carina22 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Manga artists aren't neccessarily Japanese, and manga is either: the Japanese term which is translated as "cartoon", "comics" or "comic books"; or a style of art. This merge could become potentially confusing, and a quick glance at the categorisation of both these categories should avail people of need for greater clarity here. Category:Japanese comics artists is categorising by nationality, whilst Category:Manga artists is categorising by form. Hiding talk 17:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep ( the solution for duplication is the subcat Category:Japanese manga artists, which should go in both cats).
• Keep both as they serve different purposes; thanks to Hiding for actually looking at Cats. (SEWilco 05:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename Is it Japanese artists? or Japanese comics? --Yodakii 07:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nomination. Used as a loan word in English, Manga always refer to Japanese comics. Alternatively, it may be renamed category:manga-ka. — Instantnood 13:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment See my point above. The two categorise different things. Stan Sakai is not a Manga artist but is a Japanese comics artist,having been born in Japan but residing in the United Sates where he creates comics. Hiding talk 19:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the clarification. In that case both categories may have to be kept, since there can be manga artists who are not Japanese. The two categories should be linked though. — Instantnood 05:57, 4 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 WITHDRAWN and REPLACED by a new nomination. -Splash^talk 15:24, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:United States tort case law to Category:U.S. tort case law
• Category:United States administrative case law to Category:U.S. administrative case law

Unify with name used for virtually all other U.S. case law areas (see Category:United States case law).  BD2412 ^talk 02:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Note: if the vote goes through, I'll gladly do the recat. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 04:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm. Two things. First, definitely not rename to add abbreviations in. We'll rename the rest of them, instead. But secondly, isn't it much more normally "caselaw" than "case law"? James F. (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Never saw it spelled "caselaw"; reads like something you get with a hamburger. 12.73.195.97 14:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Hmm. Maybe it's a US vs. rest-of-the-world thing, then? James F. (talk) 14:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename to add abbreviations. Standard is to remove abbreviations. If all other case law categories have abbreviations, then IMHO they should be the ones up for rename. TexasAndroid 14:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Abbreviations are not a good thing. Carina22 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Do not use abbreviations. Other categories should be renamed. (SEWilco 05:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Withdrawing nominations, will instead speedily rename other U.S. case law categories to United States case law categories. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:33, 4 October 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 RENAME ALL. -Splash^talk 15:22, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The categories for the politics of the Canadian provinces and territories do not follow the "of" from conventionally used for national politics categories:

• category:Alberta politics --> category:Politics of Alberta
• category:British Columbia politics --> category:Politics of British Columbia
• category:Manitoba politics --> category:Politics of Manitoba
• category:New Brunswick politics --> category:Politics of New Brunswick
• category:Newfoundland and Labrador politics --> category:Politics of Newfoundland and Labrador
• Category:Northwest Territories politics merge into Category:Politics of the Northwest Territories
• category:Nova Scotia politics --> category:Politics of Nova Scotia
• category:Politics of Nunavut in standard form already
• category:Ontario politics --> category:Politics of Ontario
• category:Prince Edward Island politics --> category:Politics of Prince Edward Island
• category:Quebec politics --> category:Politics of Quebec
• category:Saskatchewan politics --> category:Politics of Saskatchewan
• Category:Yukon politics --> category:politics of the Yukon - now added CalJW 11:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename / merge all to encourage standardisation. CalJW 02:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and merge all as suggested. -- Reinyday, 02:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose Colossal waste of time better spent wrting articles. No reason that sub-national entities should follow the same scheme as national politics categories. Besides, you forgot the Yukon and shall we get into another set of arguments about whether it should be Politics of Yukon or Politics of the Yukon? Change Nunavut & fix NWT duplication and leave well enough alone. Luigizanasi 03:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hopefully all the non-standard categories will be remamed in due course. It only has to be done once and the presentation of Wikipedia will be improved forever. I'm not asking you to do any of the work. CalJW 11:23, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If you rename these, then its going to open the door to chaos with all the other provincial categories with the province name first. --Cloveious 04:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• - Same reasons already listed Sherurcij 05:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a clear Wikipedia policy set in this matter, and it favours the rename. We cannot arbitrarily decide that we're going to ignore the standard just because it's going to create more work for somebody. And there's no argument to be had about "Politics of Yukon" vs. "Politics of the Yukon"; the standard in no way precludes the extra "the" in places where that's the more normative usage. Pretending that the "subject of place" format raises an issue there is simply a red herring. Rename and merge, and just tell the person who takes on the work that in the specific case of the Yukon, the category is to be named "Politics of the Yukon". Really not that hard. Bearcat 05:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I decided to take a look at the policy, and I have found this policy is currently being decided, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities). --Cloveious 05:44, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's for article titles, not category names. Try Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), which clearly spells out that "Politics of X" is the policy in a category name. Bearcat 06:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually Bearcat if you read the talk page of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (subnational entities) you will find it applies to subnational categories, Provinces are not countries.--Cloveious 12:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, it isn't relevant. The words "category" and "categories" do not appear a single time on that page. CalJW 12:13, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Exactly. The policy about categories does not apply to sub-national entities. :-) Luigizanasi 15:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • If the policy applies to Category:Politics of Canada, it automatically applies to provincial subcategories of Category:Politics of Canada as well. Bearcat 18:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • Why does it automatically apply to sub-national entities? I understand the rationale for countries and agree with uniformity using "Politics of Country" or "Politics in Country" — it doesn't matter which to me. "Xian politics" does not work for a number of countries, and neither does "X politics" with the name of the country as an adjectival noun. Sounds weird for many countries, e.g. "Canada politics" or "France politics" anyone? However, adjectival nouns work perfectly well for Canadian provinces, US States (See Category:New York politics), Australian states, etc., and are more euphonious, at least to my ear, than, say, the "Politics of the Northwest Territories". Luigizanasi 20:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
                • It applies to subnational entities because that's how the policy works. If you don't like it, take it up with as a policy discussion. Bearcat 22:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • It applies to categories only in the sense of whether you use Georgia or Georgia (U.S. state). It does not say anything about whether a provincial/state subcategory should use "province topic" or "topic of province". Bearcat 18:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Correct. My point precisely. There is no policy. Don't you just love unintentional irony? :-) Luigizanasi 20:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • There is a policy; it's just not located there. It's at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Bearcat 22:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
              • I may be missing something here, but after looking through that page and its talk page for the third time, I see nothing that refers to sub-national entities, just to countries. In any case, I am arguing for Wikipedia:Ignore all rules:

Our policies are meant to be neither straitjacket nor cudgel; they are merely a flexible framework within which we can cope with most common questions and problems. The spirit of our rules is far more important than their letter.

In this particular case, the problem is with the Yukon. While I appreciate other users catering to my POV that it should be the Yukon, it is still a point of view, and not a neutral one. The name of the territory has been and continues to be contentious issue. Although I suspect a majority share my view, it is by no means everyone. So, using either The Yukon or Yukon alone are inherently POV. On the other hand using the adjectival noun neatly circumvents the issue. I believe that WP:NPOV should trump other policies, except maybe for verifiability. Especially when we have a solution that is more elegant. BTW, just to open another can of worms, take a look at Category:Politics of the U.S. by state, not that I am arguing in favour or against also changing all those categories, or that it should or should not be a model. Luigizanasi 03:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as suggested. As for it being a "waste of time", it will take me just a few minutes to do. Hardly that bad. James F. (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Wideranging standardization discussion and consensus trumps "leaving well enough alone." I won't weigh in on the Yukon question, though, although we've definately got articles without Bearcat's normative "the" (which is a rather thorny issue, with government policy saying the "the" is arcane and common usage disagreeing.) I'm curious how cats got named for (the) Netherlands, (the) Sudan, (the) Gabon, (the) Congo, (the) Seychelles etc where I understand there is similar contentiousness. Also, we've got articles at Premier of Yukon and Same sex marriage in Yukon and so on, for what it's worth. -The Tom 14:49, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Uniformity is desirable. Carina22 16:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 16:28, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This action will make Canadian categories, un-uniform as most other categories use the convention that will be changed example: Category:Alberta elections, Category:Alberta premiers etc. This is not desirable at all, and a national standard should not be shoe-horned. --Cloveious 01:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all. 'Foo of Province' means something different than 'Province Foo'. I should be able to include my federal MP from BC into the 'BC Politics' cat because he is from BC and involved in politics. But I could not include them into 'Politics of BC' because he is doing his politicking for the federal gov, not the provincial gov. --maclean25 02:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, common usage appears to prefer existing names. Usefulness beats uniformity any day. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per maclean25 Hiding talk 09:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as per standard Wikipedia policy. I'd be willing to do some of the work. Mindmatrix 19:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 23:47, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all and stop wikilawyering. Susvolans ⇔ 12:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Bhoeble 13:14, 8 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.