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. - TexasAndroid 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to adopt the standard "universities and colleges" formulation as well as standard capitalization. choster 22:50, 10 February 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 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. - TexasAndroid 16:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The suggested new category name is clearer, and closely matches its associated stub category, Category:Brand name food products stubs. Kurieeto 21:10, 10 February 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 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. - TexasAndroid 16:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:U.S. state Democratic Parties to Category:Democratic Party (United States) by state
• Category:U.S. Democratic Party presidential primaries to Category:Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries
• Category:U.S. Democratic Party campaigns to Category:Democratic Party (United States) campaigns
• Category:U.S. Democratic Party presidential nominees to Category:Democratic Party (United States) presidential nominees

• Rename to follow form that seems to be accepted form based on earlier votes. Vegaswikian 20:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. - choster 23:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: "U.S." should never be used officially in place of "United States". --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:25, 11 February 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 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. - TexasAndroid 15:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, with no obvious use (except vanity?), and one sub-category with only one member. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but keep the albums category. Merchbow 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but make sure someone copies the categories it is a part of over to the albums category. --ʀ6ʍɑʏ89 03:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I've just removed those categories; Mark Isham's album (singular) isn't a jazz trumpeter or composer or any of those things; it's an album. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:11, 11 February 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 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. - TexasAndroid 15:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one member; little obvious point. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep so that the album can be placed in Category:Albums by artist Merchbow 23:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't understand the reason (this isn't an objection or argument; I honestly don't understand it). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Merchbow. --Vizcarra 02:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Perhaps I've misunderstood the approach to categories; are we happy with a category for every set of albums by an artist, even when there's only one member? Is the creation of thousands of categories really desirable? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I you go to a record store they have all the albums organised alphabetically by artist, not just those by artists with six plus albums or any other cut off. Golfcam 21:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, all album articles are categorised by artist, year, and (if posible) genre - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Categories. — sjorford (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• According to Mark Isham's article, he has released ten albums and twenty or more film soundtracks. That's a potential category population of more than 30 articles. On that basis, this is keepable; if there's only one article so far, the answer is to write up articles on some of the other 29 albums, not to delete the category. Bearcat 05:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; albums by artist is a well-established and sensible category scheme, particularly when it is inevitable that the category will have more than one entry. Postdlf 01:15, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. OK, fair enough. I'm afraid that I don't intend to cerate a new category every time I add an album, though... --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 17 February 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 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. - TexasAndroid 16:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated by Category:Vichy regime. Dahn 15:34, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's empty too. Carlossuarez46 21:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Vizcarra 02:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: the article itself is at Vichy France - the category and article titles ought to match, which would suggest either moving the article, or moving the poulated category to here. — sjorford (talk) 16:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Vichy France ws Vichy regime was discussed on Talk page of the article (with no clear consensus or much of interest). Around half of interwikies uses term regime, the rest France. French Wiki uses regime. Pavel Vozenilek 23:42, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. As long as the redundancy is gotten rid of, the renaming can be handled later. Otherwise, a "no consensus" result due to name disagreement might get you stuck with two categories. Postdlf 20:57, 16 February 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 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. - TexasAndroid 15:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably could get away with Speedy Rename, but wanted to be cautious. Anywho the rename makes more grammatical sense —akghetto ^talk 11:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for consistancy CG janitor 12:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Other islands are listed as in Category:Airports in Cyprus. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree for consistency, Category:Airports in Ireland, contains the subcategory of Category:Airports in Northern Ireland, which are "in" the island of Ireland although in the nation of United Kingdom. If we transferred "in" to "on" in Ireland, as we should do, this makes sense, because Northern Ireland is not "in" the country Ireland. All of these categories being subcategories of Category:Airports by country not Category:Airports by land mass this makes sense. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Technically - although all of PEI's airports are on the main island, this category is referring to the province, rather than the island per se. All of PEI's airports may be on the main island (trying to fit one on any of the tiny rocks that complete the province might prove difficult!) but they are all in the province. Note that there are a number of other categories which likewise use "in" with PEI for the same reason. Grutness...wha? 23:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Grutness.
• Oppose per Grutness. RayGates 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Grutness - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Grutness; the category is referring to the province, not the island per se. Bearcat 05:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Grutness. Ardenn 05:29, 12 February 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 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. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To lose abbreviation and match what appears to be the consensus from similar nominations. Vegaswikian 07:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. BD2412 T 18:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To lose abbreviation and match what appears to be the consensus from similar nominations. I did notice that the parent cateory is vice-presidential, don't know which form is preferred. Vegaswikian 07:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. BD2412 T 18:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To lose abbreviation and match name of main article. Vegaswikian 07:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - choster 15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Vizcarra 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. BD2412 T 18:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 16:14, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To lose abbreviation and match name of main article. Vegaswikian 07:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - choster 15:27, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Vizcarra 02:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. BD2412 T 18:38, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all hyphened names of sub-categories that fall under the above heading have been tagged to be changed to grammatically correct names w/o the hyphen. (most of these cat pages i erroneously created by the way)

• Category:Armenian-Canadians to Category:Armenian Canadians
• Category:Australian-Canadians to Category:Australian Canadians
• Category:Austrian-Canadians to Category:Austrian Canadians (merge)
• Category:Croatian-Canadians to Category:Croatian Canadians
• Category:Danish-Canadians to Category:Danish Canadians
• Category:English-Canadians to Category:English Canadians
• Category:Filipino-Canadians to Category:Filipino Canadians
• Category:French-Canadians to Category:French Canadians (merge)
• Category:German-Canadians to Category:German Canadians
• Category:Greek-Canadians to Category:Greek Canadians
• Category:Haitian-Canadians to Category:Haitian Canadians
• Category:Hungarian-Canadians to Category:Hungarian Canadians
• Category:Iranian-Canadians to Category:Iranian Canadians
• Category:Italian-Canadians to Category:Italian Canadians
• Category:Lebanese-Canadians to Category:Lebanese Canadians
• Category:Norwegian-Canadians to Category:Norwegian Canadians
• Category:Romanian-Canadians to Category:Romanian Canadians
• Category:Russian-Canadians to Category:Russian Canadians (merge)
• Category:Scottish-Canadians to Category:Scottish Canadians
• Category:Serbian-Canadians to Category:Serbian Canadians
• Category:Slovenian-Canadians to Category:Slovenian Canadians
• Category:Swedish-Canadians to Category:Swedish Canadians
• Category:Turkish-Canadians to Category:Turkish Canadians
• Category:Ugandan-Canadians to Category:Ugandan Canadians
• Category:Welsh-Canadians to Category:Welsh Canadians

the closeness in recent voting on whether to hyphenate Category:Vietnamese Americans (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 1 #Category:Vietnamese Americans) suggests a lot of users (including myself before) have not thought this grammar bit through. the hyphen is only used properly to split up two adjectives while showing that the order between the two is signicant. the order is set - a "compound adjective" is formed to distinguish say Armenian-Canadian people (Canadian people of Armenian origins) from Canadian-Armenian people, Armenian people of Canadian origins. as used in the list above though, there is only one adjective describing one noun and therefore no compound adjective exists and no hythen is used - the grammatical truth of this matter is cut and dry Mayumashu 05:09, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. explanation makes sense Brcreel 08:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: There are some others in Category:Mexican people by national origin amd Category:Brazilian people. --Vizcarra 01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

and American ones two - will put them up later unless someone beats me to it Mayumashu 03:13, 14 February 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deleted by DragonflySixtyseven on feb 10. Syrthiss 16:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Austroasiatic should be renamed "Austro-Asiatic." This word is similar to Indo-European, Afro-Asiatic, Anglo-Saxon, Sino-Tibetan, and many others. The American Heritage Dictionary says it is spelled with the hyphen and there is an article on Wikipedia named Austro-Asiatic. Does anyone oppose? Tim Q. Wells 04:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Green Giant 05:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I vote. I changed because someone just made a complete category called

[[Category:Austro-Asiatic]] and the one called [[Category:Austroasiatic]] is almost empty anyway.Tim Q. Wells 15:44, 10 February 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 of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn by submittor. - TexasAndroid 15:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because this category contains 190 stubs which are all copy and paste jobs from a single original stub. None of the stubs give any substantial information beyond which Karachi town they are located in. The 191st stub (Gulistan-e-Jauhar) was the same as the others but now contains a series of lists of places in the neighborhood including two petrol stations and a telephone exchange. All of the information on the 190 stubs would be better placed as a list in their respective town articles (which are mostly stubs in themselves). Green Giant 03:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. - That the stubs should be wrapped up into a list is a different debate. As long as the 190 or so stubs exist, though, IMHO this category is useful for keeping them collected. This CFD is very unlikely to spur the merging of the stubs. So I oppose this for now, but if/when the stubs are gone, I woudl gladly support this. - TexasAndroid 14:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Karachi is a huge city but it will take time for the articles to develop as it is in a poor country. Merchbow 23:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comemnt Considering the points made above, I have been hasty in nominating, so I am withdrawing the nominaton for the category to give it time to expand. Green Giant 01:25, 14 February 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 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. - TexasAndroid 16:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant category. All of the people listed as Confederate spies are also listed as American Civil War spies. Alternatively you could delete the American Civil War spies category and create a new category for Union spies, but right now there are so few entries for Civil War spying in general that I think it makes more sense to label them all as American Civil War spies rather than have separate Union and Confederate categories which would each have very few entries. Thatcher131 02:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support nom. Green Giant 02:30, 10 February 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 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 delete - --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what's going on here. It appears to be a random selection of years. - EurekaLott 00:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - pointless categorising years. Green Giant 00:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom, can see no use for this cat. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into their respective centuries (Category:15th century and such), then Delete --Vizcarra 02:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 21:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delte per nom.--– sampi (talk•contrib) 00:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 23:43, 13 February 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.