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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 18:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legal is the usual adjective, while law is the noun. Neutrality^talk 23:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. "Legal organisations" might be mistaken for a category for organisations that are not illegal. As per the definition in the cat itself "The most typical form of law organizations are bar associations and law societies." If "law society" is good English (and it is) then "law organization" is equally acceptable English and avoids ambiguity. Valiantis 02:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. "Legal organisations" (or "organizatons") has some problems with word clumsiness, but definitely the cat's contents are what are commonly referred to as "legal societies". "Law organizations" would suggest more police-oriented groups. "Lawyers' groups" would probably be closer than either suggestion for this cat. 12.73.196.110 03:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. "Law-enforcement organisations" would suggest organisations related to the police. "Lawyers' groups" is extremely vague; as one of the parent cats is Category:Organizations, perhaps Category:Lawyers' organizations would be better. (Can't get used to that -ize spelling!). However, as already stated I see no problem with the existing name. Valiantis 18:51, 16 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An unused category with no significant history that is not being used in any way that I can see. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, but perhaps we should start a list. -- Samuel Wantman 08:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, meaningless bookkeeping. Radiant_>|< 10:50, 16 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it's redundant with lists as well as largely duplicative of Category:Power Rangers team leaders. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, list is better. Radiant_>|< 10:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE and LISTIFY 132.205.44.134 01:51, 18 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In short, small without potential for growth. Such positions are rarely addressed outright on the show, and inferred by the fanbase. Also, most recent characters have only sections in larger articles, meaning that they cannot be added to the category anyway. Supermorff 22:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and delete. Radiant_>|< 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, mostly speculation. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:42, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE and LISTIFY 132.205.44.134 01:51, 18 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above. It's useful to have a category of characters period. It's useful to have a list of which character has what role or color. Radiant_>|< 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, unlike second-in-commands, this was actually officially stated (at least back when I was watching it). A half-dozen members or so is enough for a sensible category. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE and LISTIFY 132.205.44.134 01:51, 18 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above. It's useful to have a category of characters period. It's useful to have a list of which character has what role or color. Note that most of this category already contains such a list. Radiant_>|< 22:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as redundant with the list. Also, if you're going to categorize by color, Category:Red Rangers would be mostly (if not completely) redundant with the team leaders category above. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 22:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE and LISTIFY 132.205.44.134 01:51, 18 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Documentary films.ThreeAnswers 22:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Cat redir. Radiant_>|< 10:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Not all documentaries are films - the category notably includes radio documentaries, which it notes in the article (and I was going to add audio documentaries too!) Stephenb (Talk) 20:04, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Stephenb--Bkwillwm 21:34, 23 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really in use, intended for indexing user watchlists for some reason. I fail to see the point. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, it looks to be an opt-in version of watchlist sharing, that has seemingly failed to catch on. Some people might think it's useful per m:Share watchlists. However, since the lists would have to be created by hand anyway, they wouldn't necessarily contain someone's watchlist. So it's more of a random list of pages that people have compiled, ie. pretty pointless. - Bobet 19:50, 16 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have a subsection of WP:RFC for that, which also allows for discussion, which this category does not. Also it appears not to be in use. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I created it, not to substitute for RFC, but to handle unambiguous usernames like "Willy on Wheels #38154", which are now taken care of by Curps's bot. Also, apply whatever decision is made here to ((should block)). ~~ N (t/c) 23:06, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per request of creator. - TexasAndroid 16:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant, rarely used, little potential use. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:16, 17 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless subcategorization of "permabanned trolls". Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Rarely used, rarely will be used, these users are by definition no longer active. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:17, 17 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizes all Wikipedia pages with "request" in the title. That doesn't seem all that useful; all those pages are more easily found through other means, e.g. categorization by their actual function. Note that I find the summary list page at Wikipedia:Requests kind of useful, but there's no need to have both a list and a cat. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category of lists of categories. Are we confused yet? Also, it's hardly in use. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there hardly are any lists in the Wikipedia namespace (they have been converted to cats a long time ago), this cat contains pages about lists. But those are also covered in e.g. guideline cats or manual-of-style cats, making this cat redundant and not a useful lookup. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A somewhat arbitrary group of articles that are only relevant in the context of a 'parent' article. This is not a useful categorization. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I started the category. I have no compelling interest in it; however, I think that it's a nice reminder to be placed at the bottom of pages that the article they're reading is a daughter article. I dunno, it's not something I feel too strongly about, but I don't feel it's worth deletion. Matt Yeager 23:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination.--ThreeAnswers 10:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. To me, all articles should be "complete" as is. It might be nice to have a note in the article like Matt Yeager said - I might even vote for putting it at the top of the article rather than the bottom. But a category seems like too much. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Organises articles which don't belong together. CalJW 23:03, 22 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to make clear it's the magazine "Nature", and not "naturally disputed articles". Also I'm not convinced of the point of this cat, oh well. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Rename seems a very need clarification of the name. --Pfafrich 00:07, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would argue for deletion over re-naming, all the articles involved have been identified using a template and the information to fix them has been provided on the talk pages, there is no need to keep these articles in a "meta" category as well. The cateogyr only contains 12 of the 30ish articles that were reviewed anyway since people seem to be removing the category after they fix the article.--nixie 04:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not object to deletion either. Radiant_>|< 10:50, 16 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be "Wikipedia editorial validation". Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 18:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that have recently been revised. Redundant with Special:Recentchanges, with the articles' talk pages, and with WP:Peer review. We have too many mechanisms in Wikispace. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created this category and wasn't really sure of it when I did so. I've been waiting for someone to nominate it to CfD, so thank you Radiant. This is not redundant with recent changes as it requests help with articles, nor is it redundant with Peer Review, as any page may be nominated for peer review, and this is for articles that have recently been rewritten. This makes a difference because recently overhauled pages are less likely to have been checked by the community and are more likely to need additional sources or contain errors. It is as much a warning to editors as it is to readers; this'll let them know that the article is more likely to contain inaccuracies than normal, as others have probably not yet reviewed an editor's major changes. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 07:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand the good intent behind it, but my question is if it actually works. I think it's pretty close to some existing mechanisms that are far more widely used, and a "requests-for" mechanism that is generally ignored is rather pointless. Radiant_>|< 11:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it is still fairly new -- not three weeks old. It's gaining recognition. Attempts to make it more visible have been reverted. Maybe this CfD will be justified on those grounds in a couple of months, but not now. cookiecaper (talk / contribs) 11:34, 17 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Stable articles". However, that is somewhat unwiki, and we have several categories related to "Version 1.0" already, and this is not it. Delete, or possibly create a category about the kind of stables you keep horses in. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --nihon 18:04, 21 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a very useful way of pointing out contradictions between two articles. Better uses would include the relevant talk pages. Also, the cat is empty. If it were actually in use, it would be pointless because you couldn't see which pairs in it were actually contradictory. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete --nihon 18:03, 21 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happens rarely enough that it doesn't need a cat. Notify admins on ANI instead. Radiant_>|< 21:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And also, redundant with Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Radiant_>|< 22:31, 16 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:05, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains one item. Category:Sporting venues (currently up for renaming to Category:Sports venues) contains several thousand. Choalbaton 21:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge with Category:Sports venues or Category:Sporting venues, whichever is chosen to be better by the time someone is about to delete this. - Bobet 20:11, 16 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 18:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Underpopulated category. Rename to a title that's more usable and fits convention better. --Muchness 19:46, 15 January 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 --Kbdank71 18:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Islamists" is a POV word which can be interpreted in many ways. So I say delete and put articles from this category to proper categories, such as "History of Bahrain" or "Bahraini people". All these articles are already in other "Bahrain" categories. - Darwinek 19:20, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: As nom. states, unless someone can define Islamist... I'm not sure where the articles should be placed though. No comment on that. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Legitimate category. Frequently used political term which can be defined: American Heritage Dictionary Adj. from noun Islamism: "An Islamic revivalist movement, often characterized by moral conservatism, literalism, and the attempt to implement Islamic values in all spheres of life." For a more detailed definition and explanation see wikipedia's Islamism and Islamist. With reference to Bahrain, like much of the Muslim world, politics cannot be understood without reference to how Islamism and therefore Islamists have shaped the agenda, particularly since the 1970s. Loog 18:39, 19 January 2006

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Atlanta landmarks --> Category:Landmarks of Atlanta or Category:Landmarks in Atlanta
• Category:Chicago landmarks --> Category:Landmarks of Chicago or Category:Landmarks in Chicago
• Category:Los Angeles landmarks --> Category:Landmarks of Los Angeles or Category:Landmarks in Los Angeles
• Category:New York City landmarks --> Category:Landmarks of New York City or Category:Landmarks in New York City
• Category:San Francisco landmarks --> Category:Landmarks of San Francisco or Category:Landmarks in San Francisco
• Category:Washington, D.C. landmarks --> Category:Landmarks of Washington, D.C. or Category:Landmarks in Washington, D.C.

• Rename all. Clear naming conventions. If this will be successful, I will nominate also subcategories of "Landmarks of the United States" in future. - Darwinek 18:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: You mean all of the ~50 state ones that are "X landmarks"? That many make it seem like the naming convention is the other way. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Undecided by country agrees that this is undecided. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, all 50 states' landmarks. Category:Landmarks by country and common sense suggests that it can be "Landmarks of X". - Darwinek 19:17, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all: I'll even give you my vote because I like it - but not because it's an established convention. When more categories are "X landmarks" than "Landmarks of X", that means the naming convention is clear as you said. It's clearly "X landmarks". My common sense suggests it could go either way. But I like your way better!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Of" might be tolerable for countries and states (though I would prefer "in", saving "of" for non-physical entities such as companies), but for cities surely this should be Category:Landmarks in Atlanta etc. Valiantis 02:08, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd prefer "in" for all of them as well. (BTW, I fixed the nomination where San Francisco was misspelled). —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all: However, if we go through all of this renaming, once it is pretty much consistent, the entry in the naming conventions should be changed to the correct section to reflect the consensus. Josh 20:14, 17 January 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 --Kbdank71 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Undefinable. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 04:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --nihon 18:01, 21 January 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 --Kbdank71 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Empty and undefinable. This was cfd'ed a month ago but never listed here. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --nihon 18:01, 21 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is trying to group together articles relating to this Roman Catholic traditionalist Society of Apostolic Life (it's like a religious order, but different). It was created using an unusual translation of the name and should instead match the name as usually and officially translate in English; the article on the Society is for example at Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, which the category should match ) Samuel J. Howard 17:56, 15 January 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 --Kbdank71 17:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lots of people started making CVU a matter of EGO. This is unnaceptable. CVU supposed to be a list of people fighting vandalism. CVU is not intended to be a tool to allow people to act like m:dicks. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member and all subcategories including this one should go. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a helpful part of reform of CVU --Improv 16:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Can't see how this helps build an encyclopedia --pgk^(talk) 16:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  To clarify somewhat. Having a category for people who "claim" to be CVU members is in no way essential for building an encyclopedia, nor do I believe it is a helpful classification of editors for anyone establishing that persons 'credentials'. CVU was from my perspective always an informal group, as it's grown the concept of membership seems to have taken on a formality as indicated by such things as this category, however the basics of CVU have not gained such formality it's still just a loose collection of people who have declared an interest in fighting vandalism and is still open to any Tom, Dick or Harry "signing up". I believe we should make the informality clearer and removing formal categorisation is one part of that. --pgk^(talk) 18:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. This would be a valid argument if there were no other user groups in existence. However, as Category:Wikipedians shows, there are thousands of user classifications and groups out there. Almost all of these user groups are just informal classifications that let individual editors on WP identify themselves with other like-minded editors. I do not see how a CVU classification is any different. If this user classification goes, then all user classifications should go. --nihon 19:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that... There are probably loads of "worthless" classifications out there, but the existance of other redundant classification doesn't mean the we have to keep this one (or any other). The main point of this is that there is really no such thing as a member of CVU, there are those interested in fighting vandalism and they do that on their own, and I certainly wouldn't care if there was a category for "users who fight vandalism". Please tell me what does CVU (the organisation) do ? --pgk^(talk) 20:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  We work together to revert vandalism as quickly as possible. The whole issue of what CVU does has been explained here and on the CVU talk page multiple times now. And just because you personally don't value a user group or category doesn't mean that it's worthless to all of those who use it. Now, if CVU was generally running on a rampage throughout WP, breaking accepted guidelines and rules, I could see the validity of officially "disbanding" it as far as WP was concerned. However, since that is not happening, there's no valid reason for removing this, or any other, user group. --nihon 00:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  "Just because you personally don't..." That's what CFD etc is about, expressing my personal view as to if something should be deleted or not. --pgk^(talk) 17:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete FireFox 16:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Winter 16:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No vote because I really don't see what's dickish about this category. In theory, it does help make an encyclopedia. ~~ N (t/c) 16:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having read the below. Normally I support any voluntary form of user categorization, but the CVU is well-known enough to be a de facto official entity, and if it says there are no members, this category shouldn't exist. ~~ N (t/c) 21:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that's still up for discussion. It doesn't appear that Cool Cat has consensus support to abandon self-identification at this time. The previous announcement has been removed. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then uncomfortable keep, as although I think this category may be a bit unproductive, I can see the point, and in any case, freedom of association and all. ~~ N (t/c) 23:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just another way for people to pad their userpages with userboxes, means absolutely nothing. Nobody is for vandalism, after all. -Will 20:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because you don't have anything to speak of on your user page doesn't mean that others don't like to show their fellow editors their interests (or find those with similar interests) and some of the groups they work with on WP. The user page is for putting up whatever that particular editor wants to put up, so why would you even care how many userboxes someone else has on their own user page? If you don't want to put anything on your own user page, that's perfectly fine, but you can't start telling others what they can and can't put on their own user pages. As long as the content doesn't violate any of the policies on WP, you have absolutely no say in what userboxes a person chooses to use, or how many they put on their own user page. Additionally, none of the user categories notably benefit the project as a whole, but they do help make things more interesting for the editors here. No one user group or category is better than another, so if the CVU group is removed, ALL user groups and categories should be removed. You can't play favorites here. As for whether or not Cool Cat was acting within his authority (not that he has any more than any of the other members of CVU), that's being debated. WP generally runs on community consensus, and Cool Cat didn't bother even asking anyone else in CVU before posting his Cfd recommendation. That's hardly following the established and accepted guidelines established on WP (that whole consensus bit). --nihon 00:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – I'm a little mystified by this nomination. This category is embedded in the ((User CVU1-en)) and ((User CVU2-en)) templates. People placed this userbox on their pages, partly because of the recommendation of the CVU page[1]. (It was news to me to discover that there are no CVU members. [2]). Members/no members - doesn't make a lot of difference to me, but talk about this change on the page, or at least on the userbox page. Removal of the cat from the template will effectively depopulate this category.--Bookandcoffee 21:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really think this category should be deleted as fast as possible, I just dont have the courage to speedie it. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While there may be a very small number of individuals who use it as "a matter of EGO," the vast majority of those listed as members of CVU are doing so because they like to help out. Having the userbox also helps others who may be interested in helping out in this manner find others who can assist them in learning to help in the most effective way. I see no valid reasons to eliminate this category other than possible personal vendettas by someone who may have something against one or more current members of CVU. That is absolutely not a good reason for eliminating the category. --nihon 23:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep While I think I understand Cool Cat's intention, there has been no discussion at all at the CVU page regarding dropping this self-identification. The category should not be deleting on the grounds that the CVU page now says there are no members of this self-associated group - that change was just made unilaterally today by one editor, with no discussion beforehand. Let the CVU discussion happen first, and then see if the cat is no longer needed. nihon makes good points above - I too find some of the CVU stuff a bit silly, and it all needs to tone down a bit - but it does make a good place for anti-vandals to share resources, and the project page and the associated category aren't the property of one editor. --Krich (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Krich said it all. the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 00:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Isn't this (and aren't all the related cats) misnamed due to the use of slashes in the name? Valiantis 02:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per nihon and Krich. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 11:15, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I vote Keep simply for the fact that it does allow people to maintain contact and tabs on who is anti-vandal worker. I've used the list before to help identify vandal and non-vandal users at times. If it's deleted it's not a big deal for me, but I don't believe that the user list alone will become the CVU's downfall. It's the in-fighting and the big ruckus made by us over trivial moments like this that make us look bad to the viewing public.--LifeStar 14:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - All of wikipedia is (or should be) fighting vandalism. There is no "us" or "them", nor are there needs for badges or separate memberships. --Improv 15:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The "us" LifeStar refers to is the entire encyclopedia. Stop reading in to it the statement you want to refute. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Some editors may be very interested in editing in a vandalism-free environment, without having to deal with the vandalism themselves. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nihon and Kich. If this gets removed, in the interests of equity, we should delete Esperanza membership (as everyone should be WP:CIVIL and nice anyway) and Welcoming Committee membership (as we should all be going out of our way to not WP:BITE the newbies). I will nominate these for deletion if this cat is deleted, not to make a WP:POINT (making a point would be nominating now), but because consensus will have shown that membership in organizations whose mission duplicates policy and guideline is unwanted on Wikipedia. —WAvegetarian•_{CONTRIBUTIONS}^TALK• ^EMAIL• 17:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as there is no consensus to stop self-identification among the members of the CVU itself, and I personally think that deleting the category is a terrible idea, per Nihon and Krich. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 18:19, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is ongoing discussion regarding this right now, removal does not appear to be a consensus at this time, this category currently includes about 400 users. If discussions on the project page call for abandonment, then it can be relisted. xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 18:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, due to ongoing discussion and the fact that it's really not fair for CC to just unilaterally decide that this needs to be dissolved, without any apparent attempt to fix the issue. Mo0[talk] 19:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Cool Cat. -Zero^Talk 20:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. What about the other 14 subcategories under Category:Counter Vandalism Unit Member? Why be biased towards this particular one? Anyways, This category is about as important as the WP:CVU page itself. I rarely use the list of members, but when I do, it's to look for admins I 'know' are dedicated to fighting the vandalism they are supposed to be fighting anyways. These admins are people I can go to when I see a vandal engaged in an edit war (particularly concerning the 3RR) or that is on a rampage. The IRC channel bots don't catch every instance of vandalism. I use CDVF without being in IRC sometimes, and in cases where some obscure page is getting vandalized in a small but blatant way, I need to know who I can count on to get a block where one is deserved. Yes, i realize there is WP:AIAV, but I, personally, don't always rememeber that page. Just my opinion. --Zsinj 05:38, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending discussion on the issue; this all seems rather abrupt. Suddenly the CVU has no members and the category's up for deletion after how long operating? I say it's up to the concerned parties to hash it out, not up to any one editor to decide where he wants an organization spanning over a hundred other Wikipedians to go. Rogue 9 10:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per nihon and Krich. --Aaron 21:31, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nothing wrong with it, and the nominator needs to take a deep breath ansd relax. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per nihon/krich. Jacoplane 09:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This category is (in essence) all the people who have the CVU userbox on their user page. Extrapolating this argument would mean that most userboxes are cases of EGO - the existence of this category is far more useful than, say, that of Category: User Earth. haz (user talk) 18:23, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are always idiots in any group. I am sure that the majority of people associating with the CVU do so as a feeling of community with others who are interested in reverting the nonsense that goes on here. ANY group bands together for the purpose of camaraderie and a sense of belonging; it is human nature, not ego. I think that the idiots are in the minority, and if necessary there can be a list of recidivists, unless there is a way to prevent someone from associating once proven a vandal or an idiot. To expunge the entire category for the sake of the minority is a bit extreme, IMO. Avi 17:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it's still useful to identify CVU members even if some people abuse the userbox.--Bkwillwm 21:42, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep I don't have rollback privileges (not that I mind) so added it to my user page so people can see why I enter "rvv" as an edit comment a lot! It also helps publicise the fact that there are users who go on RC patrol - thus it can serve as a warning to vandals, a reassurance to other editors and an invitation to help! I can see it being abused, but so can anything. Stephenb (Talk) 22:39, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Terence Ong 04:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep to help identify CVU members. AngryParsley ^{(talk) (contribs)} 15:12, 24 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in line with conventions. Choalbaton 16:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. CalJW 18:07, 16 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be reformatted in line with naming conventions. Rename Choalbaton 15:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment: Is the convention listed somewhere? If you mean the U.S. and U.K. ones, that's only two and that doesn't sound like a convention to me. The other two don't quite match each other either - one says plants, one says stations. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The convention is for buildings. Plants/stations is a local usage matter. Choalbaton 04:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Though power plants / power stations are not explicitly listed, they are clearly "permanently located man-made objects" so should be named "... in country". The power plant / power station difference reflects common local usage, compare with shopping malls / shopping centres. Vclaw 00:44, 16 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category should match the article title Provinces and territories of Canada. Choalbaton 15:00, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment: Has this one been discussed? I notice Australia does the Australian states and territories as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Isn't that what we are doing here? Things like provinces, states, couties normally use "of", but this is an unusual case so there isn't likely to be a specific policy for it. Choalbaton 04:32, 16 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Philippine Director → Category:Filipino film directors
• Category:Philippine Movie Director → Category:Filipino film directors

These were created recently by a new user who apparently didn't realize an established category already existed. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all Choalbaton 15:01, 15 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Naming conventions. -- Darwinek 11:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename This should go to Category:American charities per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American —Wknight94 (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:Yep, tis true... (reaffirming) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename CalJW 13:22, 15 January 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 --Kbdank71 17:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created in error, redundant to existing Category:National Trust for Scotland properties. Cactus.man ✍ 11:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Scotland has a separate National Trust, which is the reason the format differs from that of the English and Welsh categories. CalJW 13:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete: Empty and creator requesting delete. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:39, 15 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Newbie user created this apparently not knowing the category already existed. Don't be thrown off by "List of" in the title since most of the articles in it are about individual actors, not lists. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge duplicate. CalJW 13:22, 15 January 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, waiting for what needs to be done --Kbdank71 17:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename This is part of a proposal to completely reorganize the numismatics project. The proposal is spelled out here (if I should list all categories to be renamed here, let me know and I will). The goal is to make the category names consistent with Wikipedia naming conventions, and organize the articles in the project in a more helpful way. Ingrid 05:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: That page looks very nice - but has it been approved by that project? I didn't notice anywhere where everyone says, "finally, this looks perfect!" In fact, all but one of the edits on that page are by one user - and maybe that one user is insane!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

reply: I hope I'm not insane. I've been asking at the project for feedback, and I think most people are simply involved with other matters. Most recently, I posted on the project talk page inviting comment here. I've put Template:NumismaticCategories on some of the more active project pages inviting comment (there are way too many pages for me to tag them all). Basically, I'm not sure anyone but me cares very much. If, once moves start happening, people take notice and don't like it, I'm completely open to discussing it then and modifying the proposal. Ingrid 19:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all: Of course I'm kidding about you being insane but you get my point. It seems like there's a whole project of people in charge of voting on this so I don't feel qualified to weigh in. But if you say no one there seems to care then I'll trust you for now and throw you a vote.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, the stucture you made looks great. :) Joe I 22:20, 16 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:20, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename t to the standard in form for settlments to match the other town categories in Italy. CalJW 05:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:40, 15 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the usual "in" form for settlements as used for the parent categories (eg. Category:Towns in Tuscany).

• Category:Hilltowns of Italy --> Category:Hilltowns in Italy
• Category:Hilltowns of Tuscany --> Category:Hilltowns in Tuscany
• Category:Hilltowns of the Marche --> Category:Hilltowns in the Marche
• Category:Hilltowns of Umbria --> Category:Hilltowns in Umbria
• Category:Hilltowns of the Lazio --> Category:Hilltowns in the Lazio

Rename all CalJW 05:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename all: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 15 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow up to the item below, here are the other coastal cities categories which do not use the standard "in" form for settlements:

• Category:Coastal cities of Australia --> Category:Coastal cities in Australia
• Category:Coastal cities of Finland --> Category:Coastal cities in Finland
• Category:Coastal cities of Ecuador --> Category:Coastal cities in Ecuador
• Category:Coastal cities of France --> Category:Coastal cities in France
• Rename all CalJW 05:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename. - Darwinek 11:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: BTW, I added cfru to all but the first one... —Wknight94 (talk) 13:57, 15 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By convention catogories for cities use the "in" form. Also the other subcategories for cities in Pakistan combine cities and towns. Therefore:

• Category:Coastal cities of Pakistan rename Category:Coastal cities and towns in Pakistan

There are two subcategories (and there will never be any more, barring a major change to Pakistan's administrative geography), each containing one article and with modest growth potential. The coast of Pakistan is rather sparsely populated in most places, and even as an advocate of small categories I think these should be merged. I would rather see how many articles there are about coastal cities and towns in Pakistan in one glance than in three, and they are already in the main local cities and town categories. So

• Category:Coastal cities of Balochistan merge into Category:Coastal cities and towns in Pakistan
• Category:Coastal cities of Sindh merge into Category:Coastal cities and towns in Pakistan

It should be pointed out to anyone who objects to the existence of such a category altogether that the parent category is overpopulated and in much need of additional subdivision. (And now I've discovered it, I'll be doing another nomination for the other "of" categories in a minute). CalJW 04:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all: rename and merge. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support all, standard convention. Pavel Vozenilek 21:07, 17 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy due to non-objecting objection. I shouldn't have bothered to mention the complication. Luxembourg is the standard form as in Category:Luxembourg. If anyone objects, please reopen the whole issue, rather than just defending one inconsistency. I don't even know which language this version is in, but I maintain that it is a legitimate speedy. Other version exist somewhere but a policy decision seems to have been made by wikipedia, if it was ever required. It seems that ALL of the other categories use the proposed form or I wouldn't have tried to speedy it. CalJW 04:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC) [reply]

There are various versions, but this one is standard in Wikipedia. CalJW 18:35, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • If there are instances of this spelling elsewhere in Wikipedia, it may be better to have this in regular Cfd. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: but I will defend my concern. The German name of the county is Großherzogtum Luxemburg, and there are articles John I, Count of Luxemburg, Communist League of Luxemburg, Cunigunde of Luxemburg, Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front, etc. Speedy is supposed to be where no reasonable discussion will even arise and I don't know for sure that's the case. I know this is the English version but I'm always amazed at what people will oppose. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marx-Lenin-Luxemburg Front appears to refer to Rosa Luxemburg rather than the state of Luxembourg, so is probably correctly spelt. Valiantis 02:21, 16 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All other such categories (I hope) have been renamed to "American" as agreed. Sumahoy 04:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename. -- Darwinek 13:18, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename CalJW 23:07, 22 January 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 --Kbdank71 16:26, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Henson family
• Category:Baldwin brothers
• Category:Braxton clan
• Category:Cassidy family
• Category:Onassis
• Category:Wilder family
• Category:Niarchos
• Category:Greek families (this one is because everything under it is now nominated)
• Category:Ablett family
• Category:Moran family
• Category:Pettingill family
• Category:Staal family
• Category:Molson family
• Category:Khadr family
• Category:Armigerous clan
• Category:Platen

All of these are underpopulated and unnecessary. It's sufficient to explain the relationships in the articles when there's so few involved - an entire category is overkill. In some cases, there's already an article for the family in general so the category is just redundant. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all: per nom. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all especially where there is a family article. In some cases the surnames aren't all the same and there are some articles not about individuals. These categories are easy to use, whereas you can get sidelined by other issues when reading articles. Sumahoy 04:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Personally, I'd prefer to just have a mention in the introduction of an article, esp. when there's only one other person related - like Category:Niarchos. Also, how many other Niarchoses are there going to be? It's likely to stay at two or three for a long time. These seem to be the seeds of bad things like a family category for every husband and wife in Hollywood - as well as tempting people to start adding people that are related to notable people just for the sake of expanding the category. Just my opinion... Also, to be clear, all of these are where only two or three people are in the family - any family category larger than about four people seem logical to me as a navigation tool. Then there's more than will comfortably fit in an article introduction. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:52, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Over time objections to small accurate categories have become less frequent. Let's keep things moving that way. CalJW 04:38, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Baldwin brothers, at least, since that one obviously has no growth potential. Radiant_>|< 10:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Carly 03:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added Katie Cassidy
• Keep. Mirror Vax 13:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as these will be filled in over time. No sense deleting the category now just to have it readded in the future when someone wants to use one. It makes more sense to do some searches and try to expand the number of articles and other categories that fit into these. --nihon 17:58, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How are the Baldwin brothers category going to be filled in? Are their parents still having children? I wouldn't think others like the Hensons and Braxtons are likely to grow anytime soon unless there are child prodigies in the families that I'm not aware of. Maybe I'd agree with families whose wealth and fame may go back generations - like Onassis. The rest I'd think are very finite. —Wknight94 (talk) 06:03, 22 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a non-gender-specific form that's more in line with other similar categories. Mairi 02:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 04:25, 15 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a non-gender-specific form that's more in line with other similar categories. Mairi 02:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 04:25, 15 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The amended form is in line with usual practice. Choalbaton 02:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or Alternate rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Portland, Oregon. Where I'm from, just "Portland" refers to Portland, Maine. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Portland, Oregon. Vegaswikian 06:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added "Oregon" to the proposal. Choalbaton 04:33, 16 January 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The amended form is in line with usual practice. Choalbaton 01:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 04:25, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename works for me --Tetraminoe 06:43, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: per nom. But we need to get New Jersey sports venues as well. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I'll nominate the New Jersey category. CalJW 18:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 06:20, 24 January 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.