< December 8	December 10 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:College of Cardinals. the wub "?!" 13:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cardinal to Category:Cardinalate

• Rename, the problem I have with the current name is that it only uses singular/plural to distinguish it from Category:Cardinals (for individual cardinals). Cardinalate appears to be the most suitable word for the office of a cardinal, and would be similar to the distinction between Category:Episcopacy in Catholicism and Category:Roman Catholic bishops, or Category:Presidency of the United States and Category:Presidents of the United States (among other examples). Mairi 21:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• College of Cardinals (per College of Cardinals)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:College of Cardinals. I think it's the most clear alternative.-choster 14:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:College of Cardinals is fine too, I just wasn't sure whether that would be interpreted as having the same scope as the current category. Mairi 07:45, 17 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. — CharlotteWebb 08:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slug Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. Small category consisting of main article Slug Club, an article Minor Slug Club members, and four principal Harry Potter characters who happen to be members as well. Not enough to merit a category. Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 21:18, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, or at least rename with some context... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 04:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 21:02, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Minor Slug Club members ought to be merged into something else, probably minor HP characters, anyway. Sandpiper 19:19, 11 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (G7). Mairi 22:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spainish record label stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Speedy delete Created category with correct spelling before I knew I could just rename this one... Lugnuts 21:12, 9 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge, obviously. — CharlotteWebb 06:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Armenian-Bands into Category:Armenian musical groups

• Merge, Clearly redundant Pascal.Tesson 20:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Armenian musical groups is enough IMO Fedayee 20:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Wimstead 04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge duplicate, inappropriately hyphenated, inappropriately punctuated category. Doczilla 21:01, 10 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:P!nk songs to Category:Pink songs

• Rename, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Album_titles_and_band_names says "Do not replicate stylized typography in logos and album art", and this would make the category title consistent with Pink (singer) and Category:Pink albums. Extraordinary Machine 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Wikipedia policy on naming conventions. Doczilla 20:58, 10 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was foo. the wub "?!" 10:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Railway stations in East Riding of Yorkshire to Category:Railway stations in the East Riding of Yorkshire

• Rename, To align with the other sub-categories of Category:East Riding of Yorkshire & Category:Buildings and structures in the East Riding of Yorkshire. Keith D 16:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 22:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:15, 12 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. — CharlotteWebb 09:05, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lacan to Category:Jacques Lacan

• Rename, for clarity as the category related to an individual, not a family, a place or anything else that Lacan might be. Chicheley 15:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:48, 10 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:That '70s Show characters, duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge duplicate category. Doczilla 20:56, 10 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was to rename/merge per nom (via ((categoryredirect))). David Kernow (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Queen Elizabeth II into Category:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

• Merge, the original category was listed on CFD here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_1#Category:Elizabeth_II_of_the_United_Kingdom, but someone has boldly redirected it, but this is not normal naming convention and should be reversed. Tim! 09:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge This is a blatant attempt to override the result of the previous discussion by a user who opposed the result. Chicheley 15:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep That was closed as no consensus, what policy did I break Mr Chicheley, I followed wikipedias rules. If you bothered to read that last CfD you would see that a lot of people wanted it changed, and Mr Chicheley, because it was closed for as no consensus, I was bold and moved it. This cat should not be called "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" due to the fact that its on many articles that talk about the Queen's other rolls. For example, "Head of The Commonwealth" "Monarchy in Canada" "Monarchy in Australia" "Monarchy in New Zealand" and others. The Queen is not "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom" in those rolls. It is important that this cat could serious mislead readers of those article. Customs 22:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a shameless abuse of the concept of being bold. No consensus means no change. You have simply treated those who disagree with you with contempt. What would you think if every time you were in the majority a member of the minority simply did the opposite? Hawkestone 22:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong speedy merge, this has been debated to death. The category and article titles should match. Timrollpickering 22:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Immediate speedy merge and send the unrepentent sinner to the sin bin. Hawkestone 22:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Symbolic keep Per my last CfD comments Brian | (Talk) 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge Someone can just go ahead and do this. We shouldn't be starting from this point, so voting keep is improper. Wimstead 04:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge per nom and Chicheley Wilchett 15:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge as it was created out of process. Osomec 19:06, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:17, 12 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:39, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Bald Characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

We've had fictional blondes, brunettes etc. deleted in the past, this is no different. Tim! 09:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wimstead 04:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (and capital-case). David Kernow (talk) 04:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-Releeshan 20:01, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and many, many hair-based character category deletion precedents. Doczilla 20:57, 10 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 14:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese Japanese people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: Category name is a neologism (see Chinese Japanese). In process of listifying as per previous cfd. Note that the category was deleted on jawiki as well (see ja:Wikipedia:削除依頼/Category:日中人) cab 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Question: What makes Chinese Japanese different than Italian-American or German-French? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use of the term Chinese Japanese in the manner which it is being used in this category name, specifically, to refer to people of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent, is comparatively rare in reliable sources. "Chinese Japanese" does get 32900 hits on Google Books, but of the first 100, they're all using it either in a list of countries, to refer to relations between the two countries, or in the sense of Sino-Japanese language. (Incidentally, that's why Chinese Japanese is a disambig page: because the term doesn't have any widely agreed meaning in English). cab 01:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate categorization. Is there a "White people" category? A "French Chinese" category? Doczilla 20:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per African American and Italian American. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • An Italian American is not a person of mixed Italian and "American" descent. S/he is a person of Italian heritage who lives in the United States, possibly with all Italian ancestors (i.e. not mixed). The category is being used for people of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent living anywhere in the world, not for people of Chinese heritage who live in Japan (nor for people of Japanese heritage who live in China). And anyway, not everyone in the world follows American conventions for naming ethnic groups (not even other Anglophone nations). cab 00:40, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still find the category useful and don't think it should be deleted despite the naming problem. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 03:22, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay. In the previous cfd, I suggested Category:People of mixed Chinese and Japanese descent. Tell us if you support a move to that name, or have some other suggestion. cab 03:43, 15 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 13:27, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese Spaniards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, category name is a neologism, only one entry and unlikely to expand significantly cab 04:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Who are we to determine unlikely?Bakaman 23:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but that still doesn't address the fact that "Chinese Spaniard" is basically a neologism that someone made up one day on Wikipedia, and is not used in the real world in the sense of "Chinese people in Spain". cab 01:43, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it would be for "Spanish people of Chinese ancestry", by usual convention. However, this kind of categorization eventually fails when confronted with people like Soledad O'Brien or Tiger Woods. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's no real 'usual convention' for this in English. Americans, Canadians, and Australians do it one way (Italian-American, Trinidadian Canadian, Greek Australian) while in the UK and Malaysia it's often the other way around (British Chinese, Malaysian Chinese). Not to mention ones from outside the Anglosphere like Thai Chinese. At least for articles, the usual standard is to go by the common name (which in this case doesn't exist) or a descriptive name, e.g. 'Foovians in Barland'. And there is no convention whatsoever in English for referring to Spanish citizens of foreign descent as 'Foovian Spaniards'. cab 21:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete inappropriate category. I have ancestors from at least twenty different countries. Should I have twenty different descent-based categorizations? Heck, no. That's impractical. Doczilla 20:59, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ethnic categories are out of control. There are far more of them than their encyclopedic relevance justifies. This is an example of systemic bias. Osomec 19:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Having visited most of the major cities in Spain I will take it on myself to determine "unlikely". Hawkestone 20:13, 13 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Restaurants in Georgia to Category:Restaurants in Georgia (U.S. state)

• Rename to disambiguate, per standard practice for ambiguous names relating to the Georgias. It is perfectly reasonable (WP:CSB issues notwithstanding) that we might want Category:Restaurants in Georgia (country), and therefore we should disambiguate the category name. AJR | Talk 02:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Thanks for the nomination, I saw this in doing some other work and did not get back to nominate it. Vegaswikian 02:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Category:Georgia (U.S. state). -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wilchett 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but nom should be forced to write some articles about the famous restaurants in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia to justify the change. ;) Kafziel ^Talk 20:43, 13 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 10:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American Veteran Politicians(Deceased)
• Category:American Veteran Politicians(Democrat)
• Category:American Veteran Politicians(Republican)

Merge all into Category:American veteran politicians, overcategorization, see also December 8th discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Plus the caps and spacing are wrong. -Will Beback · † · 02:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Indeed! —75.42.174.181 05:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. They are currently pretty awkward. Jasper23 04:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for uselessness. The vast majority of mid 20th century politicians were "veterans", as were hundreds from other eras. All of them should have at least one military related category, which is sufficient. These categories serve the POV purpose of burnishing the military credentials of certain politicians. Chicheley 16:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all or at least Merge all as per arguments above. —SlamDiego 02:53, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No need to break out by party (or living status). --StuffOfInterest 03:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, or if not deleted, then merge. Wilchett 15:52, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all ack Chicheley. – flamurai (t) 16:45, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and suggestion - I think it is a useful category, but the name is a little confusing, could imply "veteran politicians" instead of "politicians who are veterans", though the cat page clears that up. I also think that the merged category should be made a subcategory of "American politicians", which already exists. Again, I think it is useful to be able to categorize politicians who are military veterans, so these cats should not just be deleted. - Crockspot 18:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• additional comment - It may even be appropriate and useful to maintain the party-specific cats. Unlike many of the party-identifier categories that I would normally support deleting, military service is a positive attribute for a politician to have. Something to consider. Crockspot 19:21, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - I think if it needs to be renamed then that is fine. I think merging them would reduce the amount of usefully deliniated data that people come to wikipedia for. If you look you'll see that this categorization has gotten a lot of people fired up and active about contributig to wikipedia. THis is why it's here.--Dr who1975 17:15, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories aren't intended to get "a lot of people fired up and active about contributing to wikipedia". They're meant to categorize information. Any controversy arising from a category is at best meaningless and, at worst, supports the case for deletion. Kafziel ^Talk 18:46, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all very much, if not deleted, then merge. Essentially, underhanded campaigning. Otherwise too arbitrary. Either way, no good. - crz crztalk 17:55, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Bound to include almost everyone from Category:American politicians. Kafziel ^Talk 18:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Factual correction - The belief stated more than once above that the overwhelming majority of politicians are veterans is simply untrue. According to the Navy League, which tracks the members of Congress who are vets, of the 435 House members, only 110 are veterans, and of the 100 Senators, only 31 are vets. So only 31% of Senators, and only approx 25% of House members are veterans. These facts completely discount the argument that these categories are redundant. - Crockspot 18:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a pretty staggering number, when you take into account the fact that it will be applied to every state senator, assemblyman, governor, mayor, county executive, comptroller... It's not completely redundant, but it's so large as to be useless for any practical purpose other than stumping. Kafziel ^Talk 19:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • 25-30% of politicians being vets is staggering? I find it staggering that the numbers are not higher. If the sheer number of people who will be in a category is a reason to delete a category, then why do we have "American politicians", or for that matter, "Living people"? These categories could be very useful in helping to verify/debunk a lot of information (and disinformation) that is floating around. For example, there is a very popular antiwar copy/paste job that has been floating around the internet for a couple of years, which lists veterans by political party. Of course, the Dem list is HUGE, listing every Dem who has ever been a vet, whether they are a politician, and actor, or whatever. The Rep list is tiny, being cherry-picked for only the most well-known Republicans. Every few months, I have to debunk this tripe, by downloading and analyzing the Navy League's list of House and Senate veterans. Having these categories would actually bring verifiable clarity to the kaos of disinformation that is out in the world. Being a veteran is a very positive attribute, and something we should be recognizing our representatives in govt. for. If we are going to have categories that list politicians by their stance on abortion, their sex, their race, or their sexual orientation, then why would we NOT have a category recognizing them by their military service? Crockspot 19:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it is staggering. It may be 25-30% today, but these categories are applied to every politician who ever lived in the entire course of American history. That's an absolutely insane amount of people. If you look at my userpage you'll see I have nothing against veterans, but categories have nothing to do with positive attributes or recognition. They are categories, pure and simple. If they serve no organizational purpose, they should be deleted. Kafziel ^Talk 19:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They don't at all, and in any case that is now. What about in say 1970? Osomec 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a general rule all categories that link separate occupations held by the same person should be deleted as category clutter. Osomec 19:08, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Chicheley. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to closing admin - If the decision is made to delete these categories, would it be possible to have the articles that are already included in these categories added to the existing "Category:United States military veterans"? It would seem like an easy thing for the bots to do, and I would be inclined to no longer object to the deletion of these cats. - Crockspot 14:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to category without party names. Or delete, or at least choose some other wording even if the party names are included. Anything but "Category:American veteran democrat politicians" please - that name pattern is even worse! For example, Democrat(ic) and Republican should be capitalized, since they're proper names. The new category names are still ambiguous to me; until I read the description, I thought the category was about people who were veterans of politics, not military veterans. How about American politicians with military service without party names, or American Democratic politicians with military service and American Republican politicians with military service if party names are included? I still think this is going to be an enormous category: as someone mentioned above, a huge number of politicians in U.S. history were vets; I'm pretty sure that, for example, one would have been mostly unelectable in the 1950s unless one was either a WWII vet or an already incumbent politician. I'm not sure making categories of people who had a specific combination of 2 jobs is a wise precedent. What about vets who became scientists? Vets who became journalists? Politicans who became journalists? To say military service is a positive attribute is definately POV; ask your friendly local Vietnam vets how well that theory held up during their first few years back in the US. Then adding the party name in there makes it 3 attributes at the same time. (And I'm not even counting "American", which would mean 4 attributes, since categorizing by country is normal on Wikipedia.) And if you categorize them by party, what about independents and third party folks? --Closeapple 19:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Did anyone else notice that Dr who1975 (not the original CfR proposer ProveIt) changed the CfR headers to insert "democrat" and "republican" in lower case 2 days after the CfR started? I just noticed that. Is that appropriate? Is this CfR still valid if someone silently changes the original proposal headers 2 days into the discussion? (See also Dr_who1975's comment above: "you'll see that this categorization has gotten a lot of people fired up and active about contributig to wikipedia. THis is why it's here.") Other people may want to go back and check whether they were responding to one proposed name or a different one. --Closeapple 19:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see that it changes the main issues at all. Hawkestone 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Cross-categorisation of occupations is unnecessary and creates clutter. Hawkestone 20:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. Overcategorization. Also make the point that if kept, American Veteran Politicians (Democrat) is poorly named in the first place and should be Democratic, not Democrat. Dragomiloff 10:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Request to change names to "Veteran Politicians of the U.S. Democratic Party," Republican Party, and U.S Third Parties.--Folksong 10:07, 19 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 10:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:University of Essex alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Essex

Category:University of Exeter alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Exeter

Category:University of Hull alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Hull

Category:Loughborough University alumni to Category:Alumni of Loughborough University

Category:Manchester Metropolitan University alumni to Category:Alumni of Manchester Metropolitan University

Category:University of Stirling alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Stirling

Category:University of Sussex alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Sussex

Category:University of Wales, Aberystwyth Alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth

Category:University of Wales, Bangor Alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Wales, Bangor

Category:University of Wales, Lampeter Alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Wales, Lampeter

Category:University of Wales Alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Wales

Category:University of Warwick alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of Warwick

Category:University of York alumni to Category:Alumni of the University of York

• Rename all, convention of Category:Alumni by university in the United Kingdom and the UK style. See also the recent CFR Category: University of XX alumni (which these missed). Timrollpickering 00:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, although I prefer the US format ... these are UK schools and should follow the UK conventions. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:59, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for consistency. Also with the addition of Category:Loughborough University students to Category:Students of Loughborough University. Ian3055 14:21, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - there is no "convention" about this naming format. See Category:People by university in Scotland, where every cat has the "Foo alumni/academics" format. --Mais oui! 19:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment All but two Scottish academics categories (Glasgow, Strathclyde) are now at "Academics of Foo University". Timrollpickering 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Its just the opposite of the US convention and cats should be consistent. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 00:25, 15 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Folklore of Australia to Category:Australian folklore

• Rename, Consistency with other national-folklore categories in Category:Folklore, which are all in the adjectival format Shimeru 00:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 22:58, 9 December 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Muslim women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - About half of all Muslims are women and per related Cfd. - Bakaman 23:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Wimstead 04:10, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. and precedents. Doczilla 21:00, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category clutter of minimal relevance of usefulness. Osomec 19:10, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per "about half". — coelacan talk — 22:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or you will lose the affiliation to the important Muslim category. It was created to break the Muslim category in half to make it more useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs).

No, when the category is deleted all the people in it can be put in Category:Muslims if they aren't already. There is nothing useful about categorizing people of a religion by gender; we lse nothing by merging back into the parent cat. — coelacan talk — 06:42, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Muslims. Vegaswikian 00:22, 16 December 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 section.