< January 27	January 29 >

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. Syrthiss 13:23, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overly broad category; many women are below the average height. It also reflects systemic bias, as the average height for women (or men) is different in different countries. Gender-specific categories are supposed to be avoided, as well. Finally, I find the word "petite" to be rather condescending. Delete. Catamorphism 22:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I should say an offensive category --Smerus 23:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Muchness 00:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Ditto, this category serves no function other than being offensive Green Giant 01:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --PTSE 02:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep? - What does "per nom" mean? Why is the category Category:Petite Women "condescending" or "offensive"? Is the expression "petite woman" not a common and neutral expression? Why is this category not neutral, but "condescending" or "offensive"? (I am not a native speaker of English.) Is it a disadvantage for a person if its height is below-than-average? Is it possible that the person who introduced this category did not mean it in an offensive, but a positive way? -- Citylover 02:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom (i.e., for the same reasons stated by the nominator). Worthless category. Postdlf 02:37, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In response to Citylover's question, the main reason this needs to be deleted is that it uses what it acknowledges as an American standard to judge women wordwide--this is why the nominator suggested it reflects systemic bias. Also, Hml13, who created it, probably indeed did so with good intentions, but that does not mean we need to keep it if it seems condescending to the rest of us. Chick Bowen 03:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete 99% irrelevant. CalJW 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not offensive, but silly. 68.85.185.223 04:52, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, arbitrary. Radiant_>|< 12:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, go ahead and delete it. But I must say that I don't understand how the word petite is offensive or condescending, when in women's catalogs, it is the word that is used to describe short women. Being petite is probably the most polite way of saying that a girl is small, but whatever. I do see the original point made above as relevant...I did not realise that it reflects systemic bias but now that I look at it, it does as if refers to the average for only America and not for other countries. And I do think that it should be deleted considering that I agree that topics that refer to a specific gender are supposed to be avoided. If anything, I thought that petite is cute, but if all of you feel that petite is condescending, I say that we just write to fashion distributors worldwide and tell them that where it says "petite sizes", it should say "short women sizes". You tell me which is more offensive; calling a woman short or petite.And lastly, I did not create the topic in some malicious fashion. Hml13

Comment: Don't let the door hit your butt on the way out. Catamorphism 07:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The whole tone of this cfd was too agressive. A new user should not be pummeled like this. Lapinmies 08:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure what's "aggressive" about describing how a category meets the Categories for deletion policies. Perhaps people who are as sensitive as Hml13 seems to be about having their work modified by others shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. Catamorphism 09:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stop being so hysterical. And don't let the door hit your butt on the way out. Lapinmies 09:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and by the way, Hml13 did not seem too sensitive about it, he agreed that some people might see it as offensive, he did not act "sensitive". But whaever, you probably meant it as an insult towards Hml13, at least the last comment was completely out of line. Please girl, don't be so damn condescending. Lapinmies 10:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for reasons already given. Besides, we already have the better-defined List of famous short women et al. And this title is miscapitalised anyway. -- Smjg 11:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Somebody has now reinstated the definition it once had: "Petite Women is a list of women who are under the height of 5'4" (163cm), the average height of the American woman." What POV. As is the fact that somebody seems to have randomly singled out this gender/height group as worth having a category for. Yet further evidence that it should go. -- Smjg 10:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. --Nlu (talk) 20:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as UE. Arniep 00:59, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Pavel Vozenilek

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 merged before closing. Syrthiss 13:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title should have been Historical regions, not Historic Regions so there is a new category with a title in line with similar categories Green Giant 21:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename CalJW 03:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too late for rename, already created Category:Historical regions of Pakistan Green Giant 05:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge since the new cat was created. Vegaswikian 20:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merged with new category Green Giant 00:35, 5 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. Syrthiss 13:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two states in Chinese history known as the Qi Dynasty -- the Southern Qi Dynasty (which I am considering renaming to Southern Qi Dynasty) and the Northern Qi Dynasty, not connected in any way. The emperors currently in this category are all Southern Qi emperors, and I do eventually plan to write articles about Northern Qi emperors (but if I don't, somebody else should as well). The category should be renamed. --Nlu (talk) 20:46, 28 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 (10 del 6 keep). Syrthiss 13:07, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article violates Wikipedia Policy concerning Words to Avoid. The existence of this category basically creates a Considered by Wikipedia to be a terrorist category. Secondly, presense of only a select few individuals who may be considered by some but not by others to be terrorists can be interpretted as violating Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Aiden 20:33, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is at least the fifth deletion attempt (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Terrorists). No vote. Postdlf 02:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These articles need to be grouped. CalJW 03:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. helohe (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, arbitrary classifciation, POV magnet. Radiant_>|< 12:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are terrorists in the world. If the category causes a few problems, deal with them as they arise. As it's survived 4 times that should be that. Even if this vote were to go against it would have an 80% vote survival rate. There should be a limit on nominations. ReeseM 04:42, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Now this nomination is just NPOV paranoia. There are terrorists, and we have an objective criteria for what constitutes a terrorist - deal with it. Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 07:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep we have lots of categories where inclusion is not an honor, so what? an encyclopedia calls a spade a spade and shouldn't pussy-foot around it. Carlossuarez46 22:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should refer to actual policy, not just personal conviction, in guiding your vote? Aiden 23:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe.. Keep --JimmyT 10:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Policies are just notes on the way we do things agreed by a few people at some point in the past. If they were treated as gospel Wikipedia would suffer from a chronic level of inertia. Anything that isn't one of the five pillars of wikipedia is renegotiable. CalJW 10:59, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, no they're not. Policies are policies (and that's a policy). If you disagree with a policy you should re-open discussion on the policy, not decide to unilaterally flout it. Valiantis 15:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. POV. --Nlu (talk) 20:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Well known occupation and reasonably clearly defined tactic. Choalbaton 08:23, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Unless someone can provide evidence that there is a group of people who list their occupation as "terrorist"! Valiantis 15:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terrorism is definable but there are many people who have used that tactic whose labelling as such would be unacceptable to so many Wikipedians that the category can never hope to be complete and WP:NPOV. Arniep 00:57, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There was once a Category:Peruvian Terrorists. It was filled with Shining Path and MRTA members. I looked at the definition of terrorism and became pretty sure that the previous three Peruvian presidents (a right-winger, a left-winger, and a moderate conservative) all fit the definition, so I listed them. The category was immediately CfD'd and the vote was overwhelmingly delete. --Descendall 12:02, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The only other place to put them is in criminals, which presents the same (overstated) problems. Bhoeble 09:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Perr Aiden. This is NPOV-bait. 172.137.216.129 09:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete arbitrarily defined and hopelessly POV. Doesn't even provide the context for members that List of terrorists had before it was deleted on AfD. ×Meegs 11:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - One person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. Green Giant 01:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Absolutely impossible to maintain. There are certain limits in Wikipedia and this classification touches it. I would not like to see WP as yet another war front. Pavel Vozenilek 21:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Aiden and Radiant. --maclean25 10:55, 5 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 Upmerge --Syrthiss 13:01, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Black Rangers[edit]

Category:Other Rangers[edit]

Category:Pink Rangers[edit]

Category:White Rangers[edit]

Category:Yellow Rangers[edit]

The far more populated Red Rangers and Blue Rangers categories are already gone. The articles from these six categories would be as well served in Category:Power Rangers characters. Supermorff 19:06, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge & delete. Radiant_>|< 12:40, 29 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. Syrthiss 12:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I originally nominated these for renaming as a second best option, as there was no consensus for deletion last time. But as we may now get a consensus, I'm changing my vote to delete as the categories really aren't necessary. JW 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the cat is in its infancy: there are tons of subcategories and articles still to be included.--Mais oui! 02:20, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename. The term Cinema, in Wikipedian, refers to film theaters only, not to actors or filmmakers or, in general, Film.
  • Indeed? Then why are the relevant people by occupation cats included as subcats of Category:Cinema of the United States, Category:Cinema of France, Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom, etc.---Mais oui! 04:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, because no one has submitted these for renaming yet, and the person who created them made up his own rules. 12.73.195.214 15:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wikipedian, if indeed it's "decided" that the overarching term should be 'film' and not 'cinema', then has got it wrong. (the disambig Cinema page talk has two other uses in favour of having 'cinema' take the lead) on second thought 'cinema' may connote going to a cinema to watch a movie whereas 'film' does not carry that connotation - looks a tough one to sort Mayumashu 03:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Seeing these nominated by another user has revived my faith in wikipedia. These categories purport to describe things which do not exist. Delete them before more content is added. CalJW 03:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that there is no such thing as cinema in England? What is your source for that?--Mais oui! 04:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is, and never was such a thing as an English film industry, only a British film industry SteveCrook 04:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is not about any "film industry". it is about cinema.--Mais oui! 04:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agreeing with CalJW. Radiant_>|< 12:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not helpful to readers who wish to understand British cinema. Choalbaton 13:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mais oui! brought this to my attention, which is rather odd. I think last time I voted to keep the Scottish category, but I've changed my mind and I'm going to vote to delete that too. Carina22 14:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Helpful to readers who want to look beyond "Britishness" --MacRusgail 21:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. useful intermediate category between English actors, directors, etc. and Cinema of the UK. Mayumashu 03:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As MacRusgail's choice of words makes clear this serves a political purpose more than a practical one. ReeseM 04:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or more accurately Merge to Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom). As discussed a few weeks ago on the subject of "Scottish films", the film industry in the UK is not sufficiently split between the different nations of the UK to merit individual categorisation of the cinema of any individual country. BTW, the form "Cinema of Foo" is the standard WP name for articles on the cinemamatographic arts - see Category:Cinema by country; "Film" is used to refer to individual cinematographic works such as Category:German films; "Cinemas" (in the plural) is appropriate for venues that show films in those countries that don't call such places "movie theaters" - see Category:Cinemas and movie theaters. Valiantis 05:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete before we get Cinema of Alberta, Cinema of Savoy etc. Arniep 19:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See my comment in Cinema of Scotland below. Leithp 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, see my comment in Cinema of Scotland below. These are not unique cases and serve a useful purpose. Leithp 10:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are different from the others you refer to as there is no language difference and therefore no separately identifiable industry. Bhoeble 11:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per my previous vote, which applied to both categories before they were separated. Bhoeble 11:42, 3 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. Syrthiss 12:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The sub-cats Category:English films and Category:Scottish films were recently merged back into Category:British films, leaving these just as extra categories to house actors and directors. We can't really have Category:Cinema of England now that we don't have Category:English films. It also causes serious problems to try and separate the categories into "Cinema of England" and "Cinema of Scotland" when our articles are all about British cinema. JW 13:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my vote to delete as above. JW 21:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both as per nom. Choalbaton 13:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Amending vote and will duplicate above as there are two votes now. Choalbaton 13:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete rather than rename. It is hard enough to say whether things like the Harry Potter films are British, never mind whether they are English. Rename as second choice. Bhoeble 15:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the cat is in its infancy: there are tons of subcategories and articles still to be included.--Mais oui! 02:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • removed Nach0king 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename. The word Cinema, in Wikipedia, refers only to film theaters, not actors, filmmakers or, in general, anything to do with Film itself. 12.73.194.10 03:04, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed? Then why are the relevant people by occupation cats included as subcats of Category:Cinema of the United States, Category:Cinema of France, Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom, etc.--Mais oui! 04:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seeing these nominated by another user has revived my faith in wikipedia. These categories purport to describe things which do not exist. Delete them before more content is added. CalJW 03:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that there is no such thing as cinema in Scotland? What is your source for that?--Mais oui! 04:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are cinemas in England and cinemas in Scotland but there is, and never was such a thing as a Scottish film industry, only a British film industry SteveCrook 04:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category is about cinema, not any "film industry". So, as you acknowledge that cinema exists in Scotland, why are you voting delete?--Mais oui! 05:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said there were cinemas (the buildings were films are publicly shown) in England and Scotland. As someone said above, the word Cinema in Wikipedia is generally used to refer only to the buildings, not actors, filmmakers or, in general, anything to do with Film. There is already too much confusion and overlapping between the terms cinema, film & movies. We certainly don't need any more categorisation. Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom acts as an adequate umbrella term for everything in the UK to do with moving images. Over-categorisation will just lead to confusion. SteveCrook 06:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • "... the word Cinema in Wikipedia is generally used to refer only to the buildings, not actors, filmmakers or, in general, anything to do with Film." Then why are the relevant people by occupation categories, plus many other film-related articles, included as subcats of Category:Cinema of the United States, Category:Cinema of France, Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom, etc, etc--Mais oui! 09:54, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because nothing's perfect. I did say generally. SteveCrook 13:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • • comment the words (countable noun form) cinema(s) and (uncountable noun form) cinema having meanings distinct from one another. they are two different words that happen to have the same spelling and related but again distinct meanings Mayumashu 03:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom is sufficient. --Samuel Wantman 06:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, agreeing with CalJW. Radiant_>|< 12:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Last time I voted to keep this one and delete the English category, but it is better to have both or neither, and of the two neither is marginally preferable and is looking more likely. Carina22 14:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the less "British" nonsense the better. --MacRusgail 21:36, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per reasoning given in one above this deletion nom Mayumashu 03:04, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As MacRusgail's choice of words makes clear this serves a political purpose more than a practical one. ReeseM 04:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per my comments on "Cinema of England" above. Again I would point out that "Cinema of Foo" is the WP standard form - see Category:Cinema by country. Valiantis 05:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Does this refer to the film industry or to cinema businesses? Arniep 03:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments re: the naming of categories in the proposal above. Cinema here refers to "the cinematographic arts" (and concomitant industry). This is the standard naming practice on WP. See Category:Cinema by country. Valiantis 15:16, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mais oui!, the Edinburgh International Film Festival is a prime example of the type of article that it's appropriate to keep in this category, as are the Scottish director, actor etc sub-cats. This cat can be greatly expanded more articles of this type are created. I can see the argument for not having a Scottish Films cat (though perhaps not totally agree with it) but I don't see what benefit deleting this cat will bring. Leithp 09:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word International makes it clear that festival is not about "Cinema of Scotland". CalJW 11:01, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And the part about it being in Edinburgh? I wasn't claiming it shows only Scottish films, considering I attend it every year I'd be unlikely to make such a claim, I was saying it's part of the film culture in Scotland, along with other festivals. Leithp 11:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete before we get Cinema of Bavaria, Cinema of Texas etc. Arniep 19:06, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but we already have Category:Quebec cinema, Category:Northern Ireland cinema and Category:Cinema of Catalonia. I fail to see how these two are different, except that they were nominated for deletion before and somebody didn't like the result. Leithp 10:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that Quebec films are in French, while Catalan films are in Catalan, which is what makes them distinct from other Canadian or Spanish films. JW 21:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If there is no such thing as a "Scottish film", nor a topic called "Cinema of Scotland",nor a "Scottish film industry", then what is this story in today's Sunday Herald: [Gaelic movie leads language renaissance http://www.sundayherald.com/53939]? --Mais oui! 10:04, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the article, it points out that there has only been one Gaelic film ever made, and a whole category seems a bit excessive for just 1 film. JW 12:32, 5 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 no consensus. Syrthiss 12:53, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename 'Merge. unnecessary overcategorisation. Mayumashu 09:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC) change nomination in light of suggestion of User:Radiant Mayumashu 02:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There are at least three national categories as well and the two types of category should not be mixed together. Merchbow 12:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose When a category has two groups of subcategories it is normal practice to separate them. CalJW 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OOOoooh, confusing. Cat:Non-fiction writers contains (1) this subcat, (2) a few subcats per country, and (3) a large number of individuals. I think that all individuals should belong in some subcat instead. Other than that, both classifications (by country and by subject area) are valid and should exist. It's probably good to have "Non-fiction writers by country" and "Non-fiction writers by area". Come to think of it I'll just fix that. Radiant_>|< 12:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Non-fiction writers by subject area". Radiant_>|< 12:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Non-fiction writers by subject area as per Radiant. Carina22 14:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Radiant. - TexasAndroid 19:57, 31 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. Syrthiss 12:51, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Merge unnecessary overcategorization. Mayumashu 09:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC) nomination changed and suggested cat renaming of User:Radiant taken up Mayumashu 02:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is also a national category (Category:Canadian fiction writers) and more may be created. Merchbow 12:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. The fact that Category:Canadian fiction writers is a subset of Category:Fiction writers — and I hope others will be created — doesn't affect anything. Noone's trying to delete Category:Fiction writers. Bill 17:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose When a category has two groups of subcategories it is normal practice to separate them. CalJW 03:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Fiction writers by subject area". Radiant_>|< 12:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closing admin - Fiction writers by subject area is also ambiguous to me at least. Is that writers of fiction about geographical areas or writers of fiction about robots? --Syrthiss 12:51, 5 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. Syrthiss 12:47, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME because hockey is a winter sport played at the Winter Olympics, like Torino 2006. Ccccccccccc 06:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for reasons given below comment unnecessary clarification given that its the summer olympics Mayumashu 09:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, obviously - already unambiguous title, as there is only one form of hockey at the Summer Olympics. — sjorford (talk) 12:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT Hardball hockey - roller hockey was in the 1992 Summer Olympics. Ccccccccccc 13:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only as a demonstration sport, which don't have the same status as medal sports. — sjorford (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is referred to as hockey by the IOC. [1] Merchbow 12:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT many of the football categories have a name " ... football (soccer) ...." and many of the field hockey categories have a name " ... (field) hockey ... ", so how about Category:(field) hockey at the Summer Olympics? (though I prefer my initial proposal). Ccccccccccc 13:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for reasons already mentioned. If it's good enough for the Olympics to call the sport Hockey, the we should also call it that when referring to the Olympics. Grutness...wha? 21:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The sport's international name is Hockey; it is governed by the International Hockey federation. Valiantis 05:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for sake of clarity.--Mais oui! 00:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see also the article Hockey at the Summer Olympics, which is up for renaming.

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. perhaps have this be the top cat with field hockey and ice hockey under it if this comes up again?. Syrthiss 12:44, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME because ice hockey is actually played in the UK, and the UK even won a gold medal in it at the Olympics. Ccccccccccc 06:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It is known as hockey in the UK. Choalbaton 06:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT If this is kept at this name, I will be posting renaming requests for Hockey in Canada, Czech Republic, Russia, etc... Ccccccccccc 13:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commnet the subcategory Category:British (field) hockey players would seem to indicate a need to be clear. Ccccccccccc 13:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It does not. It was created by an IP address who is probably not British and is very likely unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policies on local usage. Choalbaton 13:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Name should be clear to all and not necessarily reflect common spoken usage.` category names about (ice) hockey in Canada are named as Category:Canadian ice hockey players, Category:Ice hockey in Canada, etc. the same for hockey in Russia, the Czech Republic, etc where field hockey is a minor sport in comparison to ice hockey. however, people these places refer to ice hockey simply as hockey. Mayumashu 09:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, with Mayumashu. Bill 17:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Sports categories on Wikipedia use local names for the sports concerned. Hence we have Category:Football in the United Kingdom but Category:Soccer in the United States. There is no reason why hockey should be any different. The term "Field hockey" is as rare (if not rarer) in the UK as "ice hockey" is in Canada and the US, and to change the name will create far more confusion than any which currently exists. Grutness...wha? 21:58, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Grutness. CalJW 03:46, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose vigorously. The normal British English term is hockey; field hockey is meaningless in BE; "Hockey" is also the international name - the sport is governed by The International Hockey Federation. As Gruntness points out, we generally go by local usage. As to comments re: the names of North American ice hockey cats it is worth considering that ice hockey may be known in common parlance as hockey in these countries, but the actual name of the sport remains ice hockey - see The International Ice Hockey Federation - and no-one in Canada will not understand the term "ice hockey". Valiantis 05:21, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The European name for the sport is ice hockey, and not in all of Europe either. I suppose no one in Britain will know what field hockey means then? Ccccccccccc 22:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quite likely that's right. Although I don't live in the UK, I do live in a country where hockey is a popular sport. And the term "field hockey" is never used here - I hadn't heard the term until I started nosing around categories on Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 01:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for the sake of clarity.--Mais oui! 09:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per all of Grutness's reasons. — sjorford (talk) 09:49, 2 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. Syrthiss 12:41, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Remove abbreviation. No need to repeat the word churches. Bhoeble 02:09, 28 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as per usual (but not inflexible) policy with abbreviations. CalJW 03:44, 29 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 with modification. Syrthiss 12:40, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eliminate ambiguity and match parent. Bhoeble 02:03, 28 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as per nomination. Bhoeble 15:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Bill 17:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the United Kingdom. Category:Roman Catholic Church in Great Britain is not ideal as there is no single RC Church in Great Britain; there is a Church in Scotland and a Church in England and Wales. (Northern Ireland is for RC purposes part of Ireland). As this is a category about buildings, and buildings are generally listed by country, then I would suggest the UK is the appropriate country (there being no country called Great Britain) regardless of the name of one of the parent cats. Valiantis 05:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative split what about Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in England, Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Scotland, Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Wales, Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Northern Ireland, Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Channel Islands, Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the Island of Man? Carlossuarez46 22:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can be split further, but there would still need to be a top category. CalJW 11:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed Then create Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the United Kingdom and put this and the Irish category (or a Northern Ireland subcategory of it) in this one. CalJW 11:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative rename to Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in the United Kingdom, (plus Support alternative split, although I agree that that can be done at a later date). The important thing is to correctly name the parent cat.--Mais oui! 11:21, 1 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.