< August 28	August 30 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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. Andrew c 23:08, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:NES games to Category:Nintendo Entertainment System games
• Category:Cancelled NES games to Category:Cancelled Nintendo Entertainment System games
• Category:NES screenshots to Category:Nintendo Entertainment System screenshots
• Category:NES hardware clones to Category:Nintendo Entertainment System hardware clones

Rename: These should be renamed, both to eliminate an unneccessary and potentially confusing abbreviation, and to conform with other related articles and categories (see Category:Nintendo Entertainment System, Category:Nintendo Entertainment System accessories, and Category:Nintendo Entertainment System emulators for examples). – Sean Daugherty (talk) 00:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above. Dugwiki 15:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - Lumaga 03:37, 7 September 2006 (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 regarding 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 (X actors best limited to TV series and film series) Tim! 10:34, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:All in the Game actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Unneeded category for actors in a TV movie. Information better served by being in the article itself. MakeRocketGoNow 20:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Better as a list, and/or part of main article. - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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. Andrew c 23:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Teen Choice Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, There are only two entries, and they can go in category:Television awards. Runcorn 19:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The two entries are a general article and an article on the 2005 awards. It is a resaonable supposition that there will be an article each year from now on. The two articles would not be adjacent in category:Television awards unless a pipe was used, and a category does the sorting job better. Calsicol 09:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Certainly likely to grow in articles.--Mike Selinker 12:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This category may be small now, but it has potential for growth. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are 398 articles with 'Teen Choice Award' in them. I suspect that most of these could be put in the category. Either keep this award or delete all award categories. Vegaswikian 01:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and hopefully populate - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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. Andrew c 23:03, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this from this otherwise successful nomination to get the "Users" out of the title.--Mike Selinker 16:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mike PeterRet 19:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 10:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per precedent of Category:Films by actor. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Similar to other "sort by actor" categories Dugwiki 17:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Michael 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 11:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. (If it doesn't already exist, we should add a comment somewhere about the precedent, for reference.) - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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. Andrew c 23:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lewisville Independent School District, defacto standard of Category:School districts in Texas. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suits me, I didn't think to check any other categories when I created it. Wesmills 16:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and creator - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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 Listified to List of television series with voice over commentary Tim! 10:24, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, somehow this doesn't seem like an important distinguishing characterstic. And they forgot Malcolm in the Middle. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning to delete or possibly listify. I don't so much think of this as a primary identifying characteristic of a genre of shows, and it might even end up including half of the shows that've ever aired on television... while on the other hand, its use as a dramatic tool is apparently notable, given that, and it may be worth expanding the voice-over article to include some of the historically notable examples of its use. Luna Santin 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, I think it could be of interest and might make a fine article. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - I don't feel too strongly on this one way or another, but the category definition sounds verifiable and it wouldn't end up "including half of the shows that ever aired", because the definition specifies the voice over must occur "each episode". So even though I'm sure there was an X-Files episode narrated by Mulder, for example, since the majority of the episodes had no voice over commentary the show would not qualify for inclusion. Thus the category won't be large, is verifiable and might be of some interest to television afficiandos looking to compare shows of a similar narrative style. Dugwiki 17:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify instead. Not a notably defining characteristic. MakeRocketGoNow 20:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - Doesn't seem like a notable characteristic, but I guess some people might think so, so it wouldn't bother me if we kept it. If it is deleted, listify it. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept or no consensus, amend to Category:TV shows with voice-over commentary (or Category:Television shows with voice-over commentary...?)  David Kernow 17:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• TV series seems to be the accepted usage - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and Delete. (And the Wonder Years wasn't included? : ) - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Merchbow 22:16, 7 September 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 10:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

formely unused template, populated by an anon user unaware of extensive previous discussion against such a concept: see [1] and [2]. Zzzzz 15:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Zzzzz 15:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and previous discussions. Indeed, any FA would presumably have been, or qualified to have been, a GA at some point in time. "My score in this game right now is six, but a minute ago it was five," seems to be the equivalent statement I might make. It's implied, or should be. A better move might be adding some small-text link to the GA pages/category, in ((featured)) or at WP:FA. Luna Santin 15:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Luna Santin - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 10:12, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete For consistency because as an article Solomon Keal was deleted as non-notable.--T. Anthony 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; vanity, nn, article on this composer already deleted through AFD. Antandrus (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if only because associated article was deleted. - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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. Andrew c 22:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:MR layout cars to Category:MR layout vehicles

• Rename, I created this category per an AfD discussion about a list. In the process of converting the category to a list, I noticed several vans in the category. As such, the name should be changed to reflect the wider scope of the category. --ais523 14:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• category:American football kick returners to category:American football return specialists
• category:American football punt returners to category:American football return specialists

These two categories are nearly identical, as players who are called upon to do one are very often called upon to do the other. It also matches the nomination that changed the equivalent CFL categories.--Mike Selinker 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Kick return and punt return are generally recognized as two separate specialities and generally are performed by different players, at least on NFL teams. The difference is that punts are generally higher and shorter and are fielded at one angle; kicks are generally lower and longer at fielded at another angle, also the formations from which the plays begin are considerably different, meaning that the way blockers are picked up is different. Rlquall 00:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both. Through the course of careers — which is all that these categories record — many players fill both rolls. I do not see a strong reason to categorize these players twice, nor to keep the two categories separate. ×Meegs 05:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both per Meegs. - EurekaLott 17:55, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both, per nom - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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. Andrew c 22:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Unincorporated communities in Texas. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for consistency with Category:Unincorporated communities in the United States. Luna Santin 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for consistency. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 10:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rugby union in Northern Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, This is not a bad faith, political nomination by someone who hates Northern Ireland. I'm English not Irish. Rugby union in Ireland is organised on an all-Ireland basis; there is one team for both Irelands, one governing body and one national league. There are no 'Northern Ireland' organisations in rugby union, below the 'national' level is the Ulster level (Ulster is not the same as NI as it extends into the Republic of Ireland). There is no article here that could not be placed in the all-Ireland Category:Rugby union in Ireland and most articles in that category would also require separate listing in the NI category. The only reason for this cat that I can think of is that it is a subcat of Category:Sport in Northern Ireland. IMO it would be much simpler just to make Category:Rugby union in Ireland a subcat of Category:Sport in Northern Ireland and delete the nominated category.GordyB 13:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Rugby union in Ireland should be a subcat of Category:Sport in Northern Ireland. Honbicot 14:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think that the proposed category should indeed be deleted as rugby union is a sport that all thirty two counties participate in together, but I think Category:Rugby union in Ireland should remain untouched, and if placed as a subcat, it should be as a subcat to Category:Sport in Ireland, rather than Category:Sport in Northern Ireland, so it reflects the entire island rather than only six counties. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 14:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The Irish categories generally are in a mess and have been for a long time. It's often debatable whether some cats are Republic of Ireland cats or all-Ireland cats as people often use 'Ireland' for both. I suggested making it a subcat of Category:Sport in Northern Ireland because this is unresolved.GordyB 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, per our discussion on my talk page, I was a bit confused. I think it's a good idea to include Category:Rugby union in Ireland as a subcategory of Category:Sport in Northern Ireland, as it can apparently be a subcategory of multiple categories and is already a subcategory of Category:Sport in Ireland. hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 16:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per above --Bob 15:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above KeithW 13:10, 31 August 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 10:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and

Category:Maps of the history of Georgia[edit]

Rename to Category:Old maps of Georgia (country) [and Category:Maps of the history of Georgia (country), respectively] to [follow] Category:Maps of Georgia (country). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:16, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename [both] per nom. Luna Santin 15:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename [both] per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per nom. David Kernow 17:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it seems the latter has been deleted? - jc37 21:11, 6 September 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 09:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:New Testament manuscripts to Category:Biblical manuscripts

• Rename, A number of manuscripts contain both the old and new testament. Most biblical manuscripts are simply listed under Category:Manuscripts, and I intend to move the appropriate manuscripts to the more descriptive category once it is renamed. I feel having one category to cover the biblical manuscripts is better than having Category:Old Testament manuscripts, Category:New Testament manuscripts, and possibly Category:Old and New Testament manuscripts. Furthermore, many manuscripts are incomplete, so would we need additional categories to cover the Category:Partial New Testament manuscripts? As I said, having one category is simpler and more inclusive. Andrew c 13:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom. "Biblical manuscripts" is much more useful than merely "Manuscripts". -- Merope 18:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Biblical manuscripts per nom - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 09:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Irish Political Scandals to Category:Political scandals in the Republic of Ireland

• Rename, This category doesn't comply with the capitalisation policy. All the scandals covered are recent and occurred in the Republic of Ireland. Landolitan 08:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Definitely fix the caps, one way or another. Just taking the chance to point out that with the exception of Category:Political scandals in France and Category:Political scandals of South Africa, all members of Category:Political scandals appear to follow a "Fooian political scandals" naming convention. Good idea, bad idea? Luna Santin 10:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't do that with the Republic of Ireland, because "Irish" doesn't only mean "of the Republic of Ireland". It isn't the only country which doesn't have a standard and unambiguous adjective. Honbicot 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Honbicot 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Michael 04:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and perhaps rename all "Xian political scandals" to "Political scandals of X"...?  David Kernow 17:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, and agreeing with David Kernow that the similar categories should follow suit. - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NCCAT#Occupation. —Viriditas | Talk 14:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not eligble for speedy (and one of the subcategories is not for a nationality). Osomec 22:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection [above]. Vegaswikian 06:05, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Gangsters by region...?
  Rename per nom and create subCategory:Italian gangsters for Category:Sicilian mafiosi per Hanbrook below. David Kernow 17:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC), updated 02:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Gangsters by nationality and create an Italian category to hold the Sicilian category. Hanbrook 19:19, 1 September 2006 (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 regarding 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 Tim! 09:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hospitals of Pakistan into Category:Hospitals in Pakistan

• Merge. Follow the form used for all other hospitals by country. Vegaswikian 05:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge Landolitan 08:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Vegaswikian. Luna Santin 10:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Vegaswikian, to match convention of Category:Hospitals by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge Michael 04:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (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 regarding 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. Andrew c 22:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Computer software logos to Category:Software logos

• Rename, Computer is unneeded in category title, we have Category:Software, not Category:Computer software. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 04:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I was gonna point out that Category:Computer software was a bluelink, but it's a category redirect. So. Luna Santin 10:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 04:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 17:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Images of orders, decorations and medals of the Republic of China. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 04:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Rename to something, definitely -- at least expand the acronym. But yeesh, Category:Orders and decorations is a mess. Um, would it be good to go for a "Awards and decorations of Foo" sort of style, so that the subcats all match each other? If so, this would become Category:Awards and Decorations of the Republic of China and/or Category:Images of awards and decorations of the Republic of China. I personally have no knowledge of how important the distinction between orders, decorations, awards, and medals is; it seems excessive, but if there's a good reason, I guess it could stand. *shrug* Luna Santin 10:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for time being, not least to indicate that the category contains images; reconsider wording during overhaul per (by?) Luna Satin above. David Kernow 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't care - I created the category, but won't care if you rename it to something else. Actually, do rename it, I've a bunch of civilian decorations and military medals won't exactly be correct. (Yes, there's a difference between orders, decorations and medals. :D) -- Миборовский 05:47, 31 August 2006 (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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, categorizing songs based on TV show rankings. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it would also be very difficult to verify this. --musicpvm 22:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not notable and unverifiable. Rlquall 00:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Michael 04:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. By your reasoning, the Billboard category should be deleted. I don't believe any of this "notability" bullsh*t. I believe Wikipedia is not paper, and if a category is useful, keep it. Tom Danson 16:05, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see how a daily television countdown on a cable network is as notable as worldwide-published charts from a magazine that was founded in 1894. --musicpvm 23:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Billboard magazine is published weekly, whereas 106 & Park airs every weekday. Extraordinary Machine 12:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete, its a cable television countdown show, not ranked by any official sales or airplay information. Completely non-notable and unverifyable. -- eo 21:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's not doing any harm being there. Thankyoubaby 22:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was about to nominate this for deletion myself. It's difficult to verify, music video countdowns aren't anywhere near as noteworthy as record charts, and there's a new 106 & Park countdown every weekday. Extraordinary Machine 12:52, 10 September 2006 (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 regarding 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 on adding "roman". Renaming to Category:Catholic Comedians --Kbdank71 14:33, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Roman Catholic comedians, convention of Category:Roman Catholics by occupation. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename per nom. David Kernow 04:02, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 04:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unimportant intersection. If kept then rename. Twittenham 08:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. --M@rēino 13:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Overcategorization based on religion. -choster 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose SynKobiety 17:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This move is a clear violation of WP naming policy. For more information on this, please see: CC vx. RCC. Vaquero100 17:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it isn't. Your interpretation of policy is biased. Merchbow 22:20, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move per above, neutral on delete. Kylef81 18:03, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose move/rename per Vaquero 100, abstain on deletion. --Leinad ¬ »saudações! 18:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. however, category:Catholic comedians is alright, I suppose (though not precise imho), if necessary for concensus, as per User:Vaquero100/CC vs. RCC,. - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with established Category:Roman Catholic entertainers. Just a thought, but would such intersections perhaps better handled by software calculating overlap between larger, unrelated categories like Category:Roman Catholics and Category:Comedians? Gimmetrow 23:41, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions

This page in a nutshell: Generally, article naming should give priority to what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature.

--WikiCats 01:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per policy above. Chonak 07:11, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 2nd Piston Honda 11:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. At least remove list. Per a vote a few days later there is a group of users objecting to the use of Roman Catholic. I don't think anyone is objecting to the removal of the word "list". Please leave open for a further 7 days so that at least the "list" issue can be cleared up. Merchbow 22:19, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some members of the Church of England object to the use of "Catholic" to mean "Roman Catholic". They argue that the Church of England is part of the Catholic church but not of the Roman Catholic church.--Runcorn 19:03, 9 September 2006 (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 regarding 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. - EurekaLott 03:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palm Beach to Category:Palm Beach, New South Wales

• Rename. Don't know about you, but I instantly thought of the one in Florida. Palm Beach is a disambiguation page linking to several places of this name. Mid you, do we even really need categories for individual Sydney suburbs? Grutness...wha? 01:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Honbicot 14:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Dugwiki 17:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 04:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (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 regarding 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 per revised nom. - EurekaLott 03:01, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm relisting this from this otherwise successful nomination because a lot of the opinions about this category may have gotten lost in the gang nomination. The opinions stated there seemed to be that Anglophiles love England more than just a passing interest, but this is the only category for those interested in England, and if this path were followed, it would double up every subcategory of category:Wikipedians interested in a region. There is no common parallel term for those who love Mexico or Georgia, so I chalk this up to the term "Anglophile" being available rather than it being unique. Your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker 01:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Passing spanner (apologies): Having been looking into "national administrative subdivisions" (!) recently, it appears England is considered a country with nine regions...  Darn, David Kernow 01:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The regions of England are a recent EU-imposed standardisation measure of little legitimacy or importance. The primary and legitimate thousand year old subdivision of England is into counties. The EU-lackey Labour government tried impose regional government, but even though it cynically selected to hold the trial referendum in the region that was most likely to accept the idea, the public gave it a bloody nose by rejecting the proposal by 78% to 22%. Twittenham 08:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in England, which is what Anglophile means. Twittenham 08:46, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Wikipedians interested in England The UK is not England.GordyB 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. I've changed the nomination.--Mike Selinker 14:20, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per (current :p) nom, for consistency with Category:Wikipedians. Luna Santin 15:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency with similar categories. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -Doc 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in England - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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. - EurekaLott 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Tiny Pop shows, convention of Category:Television series by network. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; have created and populated Category:Tiny Pop shows. Regards, David Kernow 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Michael 04:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per David Kernow. Apparent article in category space, now redundant. Not expecting much debate on this one. :) Luna Santin 15:41, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to article space, since that's what it apparently was, and put up for AfD, if wanted. - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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 regarding 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. - EurekaLott 02:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Seems to be a category for Wikipedians who wish they were Canadian. Empty and badly named. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per strangeness. Michael 04:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless and empty. Twittenham 08:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Luna Santin 10:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (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 regarding 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 as empty. - EurekaLott 02:46, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Free Internet applications. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename or as empty, delete. David Kernow 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Michael 04:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete, seems kind've redundant to a number of others in Category:Free application software. It also happens to be empty, at least for the time being (unless that changes). If kept, then definitely at least rename to drop the extra "free." Luna Santin 15:39, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's still empty at the close of discussion, just kill it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:13, 30 August 2006 (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 regarding 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. - EurekaLott 02:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not needed... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not needed... Michael 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 14:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with concerns about WP:OWN, also note that the sub-cats are redirects to this cat. - Jc37 21:45, 3 September 2006 (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.