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?¿? 03:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Misspelled, empty, and duplicate of Category:Road transport in Brazil Howcheng 23:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 13:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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), see closure note. ∞Who?¿? 03:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While this might be a legitimate category in its own right with different content, it is actually closer to the content found in the categories in category:Conservation by country so it should be merged into category:Conservation in Thailand. The national parks category is also in category:national parks by country, which is in category:Parks. The wildlife sanctuaries are not parks in the normal sense, and nor are the historical parks, which are mostly ancient buildings. Conservation is the best and standard place for them.
Merge CalJW 23:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Probably useful for the category:parks hierarchy. — Instantnood 13:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Closing note, although there is a 2/3, which could be used for a merge, I prefer 70% for merge/deletion. Also the main issue is mis-categorization, and the keep vote raises a valid objection for keeping for valid articles. Category kept, recategorize where appropriate. ∞Who?¿? 03:04, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 03:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contents moved to more appropriate Category:Hundreds. Also see talk. Jao 20:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete can it be speedied as empty category? Hiding talk 09:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 02:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be pluralised, and the latter is the format of other categories in Category:Actors by series --TimPope 20:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename CalJW 22:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Actors appearing on Neighbours. siafu 13:24, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to "Actors appearing on Neighbours". James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Apart from being non-standard the alternative proposal is in the present tense, which is not appropriate. Carina22 16:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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. ∞Who?¿? 02:52, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Religious movements has only two subcategories and three articles that are not materially different from the subcategories and articles listed under Category:Religious faiths, traditions, and movements. This will consolidate related topics and reduce confusion about the meaning of the two overlapping categories. — RDF ^talk 19:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge for reasons stated above. — RDF ^talk 19:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 02:51, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is not a standard category. It was only in the Georgia (country) menu when I found it. The standard form would be "Georgian (country) organisations", but that awkward form is not used for any other categories, and it sounds like it has something to do with country and western music to me, so I suggest renaming it category:Organisations in Georgia (country) CalJW 19:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. CDThieme 20:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Is that really what you mean? It hasn't been nominated for deletion and you have given no reason for it to be deleted. CalJW 22:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 13:25, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to "Georgia organisations". Primary topic disambiguation and all that. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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 |>31373 (delete). ∞Who?¿? 02:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Duplicate of Category:User 1337 only used by one person, compared to many for the other. Should this be on Templates for deletion? I wasn't sure, if someone could fix it if necessary, that'd be great. Kertrats | Talk 14:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• D31337. CDThieme 20:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• |>3133+. No argument. siafu 13:28, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 3Я3@53. ∞Who?¿? 17:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Bhoeble 19:04, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• |\/|3Я63. — Instantnood 20:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 86 @5 P3Я |<3Я7Я@75. Grutness...wha? 00:55, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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, see closure note. ∞Who?¿? 02:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

from speedy
To align with "roads in foo" convention specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for subcats of Category:Roads by country. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Possibly moving expressways to a subcategory of the category for roads, and hold until the disagreements around the use of the term "mainland China" (which means the PRC minus Hong Kong and Macao) on Wikipedia is settled. — Instantnood 11:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Where and when might this be settled? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. If the mainland China issue is resolved indicated that PRC should be replaced with "mainland China" (unlikely) then we'll just have a bot do it. siafu 13:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment: Since this category has been mainland China-specific since its creation long ago, I would oppose any moves that changes its nature, including making the Hong Kong and Macao categories subcats of it. — Instantnood 08:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Closing note, no responses to the naming issue have been given, if there is a need for a rename later, then it will be changed then. ∞Who?¿? 02:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 02:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

from speedy
To align with "roads in foo" convention specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for subcats of Category:Roads by country. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep. This category is for both roads and streets. — Instantnood 11:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Is there some specific difference between a road and a street, perhaps peculiar to Hong Kong? 15 of the 17 subcats in Category:Roads by country are just "roads in". The question is why should Hong Kong be different? -- Rick Block (talk) 14:24, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename. Streets are roads and roads are streets, unless someone can provide a clear delineation outside of wikipedia. siafu 13:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment: Roads may be a general term... but usually streets are shorter and narrower, and roads are longer and wider here. This category is intended for all these passages. — Instantnood 16:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename. I remember a related discussion over roads and streets, and it appears that streets are often considered a sub-section of roads. Hence, a Category:Streets in Hong Kong cat may be created if there is a need to and made a subsection of Category:Roads in Hong Kong.--Huaiwei 16:23, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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, see closure note. ∞Who?¿? 02:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

from speedy
To align with "roads in foo" convention specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for subcats of Category:Roads by country. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Objection This appears to be for a particular class of road. Category name requires discussion. CalJW 03:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Possibly by having category:roads in the Republic of China as the subcategory of category:roads by country, and category:highways in Taiwan as a subcategory of category:roads in the Republic of China. — Insta ntnood 11:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nom. I agree with the structure proposed by Instantnood. siafu 13:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment If you agree with Instanthood, you can't agree with the nominator too as instanthood's structure does not involve renaming this category. CalJW 02:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep and create a parent category as proposed by Insta CalJW 02:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and create parent as per Instantnood. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep and create parent as per Instantnood. Carina22 16:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Comment With reference to the above three votes, is this becoming a proposal in which we have Category:Highways in Taiwan as a subcategory of category:roads in the Republic of China?--Huaiwei 16:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  That's what it sounds like to me. -- Rick Block (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  If that is what this is becoming, then I oppose the move. I would think Category:Highways in Taiwan continuing as a subcat of Category:Highways in the Republic of China, and the later of which as a sub-cat of Category:Roads in the Republic of China is far more appropriate. --Huaiwei 18:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agree. — Instantnood 05:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Closing note the discussion was to keep and make other categories a sub-cat or parent cat. This is a categorization issue, and not necessarily a CFD issue, its good to have the discussion, but no changes will be made. Be bold! and create the proposed category, and add sub-cats and articles as necessary, but the main category will not be renamed. ∞Who?¿? 02:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 02:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete: I forgot a period after the second A.Julien Tuerlinckx 12:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy - Request for deletion by creator of misnamed category qualifies for speedy deletion. TexasAndroid 13:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to "R. A. A. Louviéroise" (we generally put spaces betwixt initials). James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Closing note the other category was already created, you may request its renaming instead. ∞Who?¿? 02:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 02:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ill-defined category. All but one of these are set in the former Yugoslavia. Suggest delete unless someone can think of a suitable re-name and remove the one rogue film (Tears of the Sun). JW 12:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as soon as possible. - Darwinek 16:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Ill-defined, not useful. siafu 13:42, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as per the nom. *drew 22:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 02:12, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Submarine fiction. JW 10:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep, I think it's a fairly obvious distinction and works well as a subcat of both Category:Submarine fiction and Category:U-boats. Hiding talk 15:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  My mistake - I always thought U-boats were submarines. JW 21:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Useful precision. CalJW 22:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as subcategory. -Sean Curtin 01:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 02:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are nine subcategories of Category:Mountain passes. Four are (IMO) named correctly as "Mountain passes of Foo". I propose renaming the other five for consistency:

• Category:Passes of the Alps → Category:Mountain passes of the Alps
• Category:Passes of the Carpathians → Category:Mountain passes of the Carpathians
• Category:Austrian mountain passes → Category:Mountain passes of Austria
• Category:Passes of Afghanistan → Category:Mountain passes of Afghanistan
• Category:Passes of Switzerland → Category:Mountain passes of Switzerland

Grutness...wha? 08:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename all CalJW 08:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all - are there more "by-country" subcats coming, perhaps warranting the addition of "Mountain passes of foo" as a convention to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)? -- Rick Block (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  It's posible. I only discovered this when creating Category:Mountain passes of New Zealand, and there are enough unsorted ones simply in Category:Mountain passes for several others - and probably quite a few uncategorised articles or articles which should be written. I can imagine Canada, Chile, India, China, Japan, Nepal, Turkey, Norway, and several US states getting separate categories, for instance. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename all. No argument. siafu 13:43, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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. Naming conventions candidate. ∞Who?¿? 02:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The names of these categories currently are mostly "fooian images" with a few in "images of foo" format. Propose mass renaming as below and adding "Images of foo" as the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Detailed list follows (not yet marked with cfru). -- Rick Block ( talk ) 07:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(being marked with CFRU now) (SEWilco 15:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]

• Category:Afghanistan images → category:Images of Afganistan
• Category:Albania images → category:Images of Albania
• Category:Algeria images → category:Images of Algeria
• Category:Andorra images → category:Images of Andorra
• Category:Angola images → category:Images of Angola
• Category:Antigua and Barbuda images → category:Images of Antigua and Barbuda
• Category:Argentina images → category:Images of Argentina
• Category:Armenia images → category:Images of Armenia
• Category:Australia images merge into category:Images of Australia
• Category:Austria images → category:Images of Austria
• Category:Azerbaijan images → category:Images of Azerbaijan
• Category:Bahamas images → category:Images of Bahamas
• Category:Bahrain images → category:Images of Bahrain
• Category:Bangladesh images → category:Images of Bangladesh
• Category:Barbados images → category:Images of Barbados
• Category:Belarus images → category:Images of Belarus
• Category:Belgium images → category:Images of Belgium
• Category:Belize images → category:Images of Belize
• Category:Benin images → category:Images of Benin
• Category:Bhutan images → category:Images of Bhutan
• Category:Bolivia images → category:Images of Bolivia
• Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina images → category:Images of Bosnia and Herzegovina
• Category:Botswana images → category:Images of Botswana
• Category:Brazil images → category:Images of Brazil
• Category:Brunei images → category:Images of Brunei
• Category:Bulgaria images → category:Images of Bulgaria
• Category:Burkina Faso images → category:Images of Burkina Faso
• Category:Burundi images → category:Images of Burundi
• Category:Cambodia images → category:Images of Cambodia
• Category:Cameroon images → category:Images of Comeroon
• Category:Canada images merge into category:Images of Canada
• Category:Cape Verde images → category:Images of Cape Verde
• Category:Central African Republic images → category:Images of the Central African Republic
• Category:Chad images → category:Images of Chad
• Category:Chile images → category:Images of Chile
• Category:China images → category:Images of China
• Category:Colombia images → category:Images of Columbia
• Category:Comoros images → category:Images of Comoros
• Category:Congo images merge into category:Images of the Democratic Republic of Congo
• Category:Côte d'Ivore images → category:Images of Côte d'Ivore
• Category:Democratic Republic of Congo images → category:Images of the Democratic Republic of Congo
• Category:Hong Kong images → category:Images of Hong Kong
• Category:India images merge into category:Images of India
• Category:Netherlands images → category:Images of the Netherlands
• Category:Images of Poland
• Category:Serbia and Montenegro images → category:Images of Serbia and Montenegro
• Category:Singapore images → category:Images of Singapore
• Category:Images of Sri Lanka
• Category:Turkey images → category:Images of Turkey
• Category:United Kingdom images → category:Images of the United Kingdom
• Category:Images of United States → category:Images of the United States

• Objection to form of proposal There is no such naming convention. The word "images" does not appear on the page linked. It is an unresolved matter on its talk page. There is no general rule that the "of" form should be used except for natural features. Images are not natural features. Thus we are being asked to create policy, not to implement it. CalJW 08:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yes, there is no existing convention listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for the subcats of Category:Images by country. The request is to create such a convention (not change any policy) and the proposed convention admittedly differs from the existing de facto standard. CFD is the place to institute and change these conventions, as described on the naming conventions page. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose all. To quote my comments on the talk page:
  • The problem is that 48 out of 49 national categories are in "X images" format, while the subcategories of category:Images of places are in "Images of X" format. But apart from the categories for U.S. states "Images of places" is almost empty. Thus we have two different standards and Category:Images of United States is the intersection point. I favour "Images X" because not all the images in these categories show the whole of the place named. To me, "Images of the United States" only completely appropriate for satellite photos. An image of say a Harley Davidson is an image "from" or "taken in" the United States. Thus it's easiest to stick to "United States images" to cover all types of images, and all the continental and US state categories should be amended to reflect the convention used for countries. CalJW 01:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • CalJW 08:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • What are these "49 national categories" to which you refer? 49 is not the number of categories being discussed, and 20 of the "X images" categories are empty and thus do not indicate any consensus. Also notice how many of these categories are near the start of the alphabet; they indicate a single user's project rather than a consensus. (SEWilco 16:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]
    • How about "X-related images"? That would matches the form used for two other national "content type" categories, category:lists by country and the by country categories in Category:Stub categories. The subcategories of Category:Maps use the "X maps" form. The current proposal is a departure from a de facto standard, rather than being in compliance with a policy as claimed. CalJW 08:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge those duplicated (e.g. Canada, Australia, India) according to consensus. — Instantnood 10:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all. --Kbdank71 13:19, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all. These obviously should be "of country" or "in country" categories (either as Man-made objects or Natural features), and the convention states in Naming conventions (categories)#How to name the country: "For "of country" and "in country" categories, the name of the country should appear as it does in the name of of the article about that country" (SEWilco 14:59, 30 September 2005 (UTC))Reply[reply]
• Rename all per my comments of previous discussion, to whit "I have no problem understanding that images of the Statue of Liberty or the White House are images of the United States. Isn't that the common way to refer to groups of images of objects within a country, they are images of that country. I suggest that the (current) format is unusual and not perhaps common usage." Hiding talk 15:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment This constant insistence that there is an established consensus on this matter when there is not, and I have pointed that out in the plainest terms, is lamentable conduct. CalJW 19:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all. Current "X images" is grammatically unacceptable and does not fit with all other country-specific categories. siafu 13:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested, on the basis of grammar if nothing else. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 02:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to standard form: category:Schools in South Africa as per all but one of the other categories in schools by country. (But I don't think the other one should be changed (though it should be made a subcategory) which is another example of why these should not be speedies). CalJW 06:41, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename and add "Schools in foo" as the convention for subcats of Category:Schools by country to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 23:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename. This should be a speedy; making the other cat a subcategory does not require coming to CfD. siafu 13:48, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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 convention candidate. ∞Who?¿? 01:56, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename category:Castles in Armenia to agree to all the other national castles categories. CalJW 05:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename and add "Castles of foo" "Castles in foo" as the convention for subcats of Category:Castles to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 06:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Presumably you mean "Castles in foo"? CalJW 08:28, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Yes. Sorry. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 13:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is simply an out of date copy of the article list of Armenians. It was used as an article rather than as a category. It looks like an error. Delete CalJW 05:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 13:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Category:Politics of France in line with the convention for these categories. CalJW 05:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 13:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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 except Muppets, see closure note. ∞Who?¿? 01:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:Sophia Loren films → Category:Films starring Sophia Loren
• Category:Muppet films → Films starring the Muppets
• Category:Elvis Presley films → Category:Films starring Elvis Presley
• Category:Peter Sellers films → Category:Films starring Peter Sellers
• Category:James Stewart films → Category:Films starring James Stewart

Will make Category:Films by star consistent internally and parallel Category:Films by director in terms of naming regimen, also eliminates the "Clint Eastwood films" ambiguity problem identified earlier. -The Tom 04:34, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The delete all argument seems convincing, again with the "except Muppets" proviso. -The Tom

• Don't bother renaming. There are only a few at the moment, but its a bad precedent. If we allow "Films by Star", it could expand to a massive number of unnecessary categories: almost every leading actor could have their own category. Just for example, how many categories would The Longest Day be in, or A Bridge Too Far? Delete all of them except Category:Muppet films which can be a sub-cat of Category:Film series. JW 09:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all (Except Muppet) - As per JW. We deleted a single category like this a week or so ago. TexasAndroid 13:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per JW, TexasAndroid (sparing the Muppets). This could easily slide into POV as well, not to mention the cateogry-bloat. siafu 13:55, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete except for the Muppets ones, lest we get into matters of alleged "notability". James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete (except 'Muppet'). *drew 22:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Closing note only the categories tagged will be deleted. You may tag the other categories and reference this discussion, but they must have proper notice. ∞Who?¿? 01:45, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename consistent with all other members of Category:Natural history by country.--nixie 04:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename and add "Natural history of foo" as the convention for subcats of Category:Natural history by country to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 06:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as per others.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. Alan Liefting 04:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Diana Ross has only been in three feature films, and a handful of television movies. Non-neccessary category. --FuriousFreddy 03:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - For same reasons given above in the Films by Star nomination. TexasAndroid 13:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete on it's own and per above. siafu 15:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as per the nominator. *drew 00:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to standard form Category:Religion in Japan CalJW 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy per criterion #4. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  As Rick Block knows I disapprove of criterion #4. I will continue to post them here and I would prefer them to be left for the full seven days. CalJW 03:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Closing note please show your opinions on policies on the talk page, not with WP:POINT. If someone objects to a category nominated for CSD, they have a 2 day period to disagree. ∞Who?¿? 01:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:35, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to standard form Category:Religion in Cambodia CalJW 02:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy per criterion #4. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to standard form Category:Religion in Iceland CalJW 02:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy per criterion #4. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:32, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of the London buildings and structures categories already use the "in" form, which is standard for man-made objects, but some do not:

• Category:London hospitals --> Category:Hospitals in London
• Category:London hotels --> Category:Hotels in London
• Category:London markets --> category:Markets in London
• Category:London places of worship --> Category:Places of worship in London
• Category:London prisons --> category:Prisons in London

Rename all CalJW 01:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename Category:Politcs of the United States in line with policy of avoiding abbreviations. CalJW 01:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy per criterion #4. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:29, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to standard form Category:Politics of Mexico CalJW 01:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy per criterion #4. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per above. --Vizcarra 22:03, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:28, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to standard Category:Towns in Lithuania CalJW 00:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy per criterion #4. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:27, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to standard Category:Cities in Lithuania CalJW 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy per criterion #4. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Contains three articles; unlikely to gain more. tregoweth 00:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep Three articles is enough. It's neater to tidy them away in their own category than leave them hanging around forever in a more general one. CalJW 00:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Three articles is insufficient. siafu 15:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete should be Robot characters in film and TV or something similar if existing at all Arnie587 17:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, agree with CalJW. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• 'Rename to My Life as a Teenage Robot. --FuriousFreddy 00:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as per FuriousFreddy. That's the correct name of the show. TexasAndroid 12:59, 7 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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?¿? 01:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unpopulated; unlikely to gain articles. tregoweth 00:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete CalJW 00:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete if a category did exist surely it should be more general like "Robots characters in film and TV" or something similar Arnie587 17:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. James F. (talk) 07:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC)Reply[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.