< January 6	January 8 >

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 17:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ulster Unionist Wikipedians[edit]

Seems to be an orphan Userbox category and should be deleted. TCorp 23:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete wikipedia categories are getting increasingly political and this has the ability to undermine the whole wikipedia project, it detracts from what wikipedia is, an encyclopedia. (Note: for anyone that thinks I might be doing this because I am Irish note that I voted for the deletion of Category:Irish Republican Wikipedians recently). Djegan 13:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all categories of Wikipedians by POV. David | Talk 18:49, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Divisive. Calsicol 15:22, 9 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. Syrthiss 17:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:SIS cryptographers to Category:Signals Intelligence Service cryptographers[edit]

If the abbreviation goes users will be able to get a better idea of what this is for without having to open it. Choalbaton 22:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename expand abbreviations almost always. -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 00:29, 8 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. Syrthiss 17:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NSA cryptographers to Category:National Security Agency cryptographers[edit]

If the abbreviation goes users will be able to get a better idea of what this is for without having to open it. Choalbaton 22:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename expand abbreviations almost always. -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Mild leave as is If you go to Category:National Security Agency, there are several sub-categories with "NSA" in the title. One could change them all, I suppose, but there must be better ways to spend one's time. People interested in the subject know what NSA means. --agr 21:02, 12 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. Syrthiss 17:56, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly to remove the abbreviation, but the word order needs to be changed too to avoid clumsiness. "American" is standard, rather than United States. The proposal matches Category:American people by city.

• Rename Choalbaton 22:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Rename. At last. - Darwinek 09:26, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OPPOSE, if anything, it should be Category:American people by United States state or Category:People of the United States by United States state 132.205.45.110 20:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:American people by state - not to the ugly versions proposed by 132.205.45.110 Calsicol 23:25, 9 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. Syrthiss 17:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove abbreviation. The article is at Founding Fathers of the United States. Choalbaton 22:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename, the new name not only expands the abbreviation, but is a much smoother sounding beast altogether, saying precisely what they did (one can imagine other Founding Fathers from the US, who did not actually father the founding of the US...) -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• NPOV title? fathers implies that all the founders were men. (not boys, or female) 132.205.45.110 20:33, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were. siafu 21:07, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed (ignoring the PC point made by 132.205.45.110 Osomec 20:16, 12 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 SPEEDY DELETE. Syrthiss 18:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Author Request for Speedy Delete: created by mistake --Justin Eiler 20:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Deleted per creator's request. In the future, just tag with "db|accidental user creation" replacing the quotes with braces. Soltak | Talk 21:15, 7 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 SPEEDY RENAME. Syrthiss 18:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Useful category, could add some structure to Category:Science, but needs renaming. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 20:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename Choalbaton 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy it's just capitalization. This doesn't need a full CfD, see above. -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't nominate it for speedy renaming because I wanted (and still want) input from others on whether the category truly is an addition to the hierarchy under Category:Science. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 00:32, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not useful; the various branches (Category:Biology, Category:Physics, Category:Chemistry, etc.) of science fall directly Category:Science as it is. siafu 00:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename as typo. We do need it, disciplines and other topics are mixed in the category. The category:Science will look cleaner. --Vizcarra 22:50, 11 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 18:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American Scientists - Redundant with Category:American scientists
• Category:Scientists by Nationality - Redundant with Category:Scientists by nationality

Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 20:09, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both Choalbaton 22:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. No argument. siafu 00:34, 8 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 (no change). Syrthiss 18:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category presently includes Soviet and/or Russian cosmonauts of Ukrainian descent. None of them is either citizen of Ukraine or the participant of Ukrainian national space program. Instead, the only representative of independent Ukraine to fly space mission was an astronaut within the NASA flight. Info on him and his agency can be found in Category:Ukrainian space program and Category:Astronauts.

IMHO, the choice is between renaming the category into Category:Soviet and Russian cosmonauts of Ukrainian descent (then including into Category:Ukrainian people), and deleting it at all. Ukrained 20:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Nationality is not the same as citizenship. If they were Ukrainian, and they were cosmonauts, this category is fine. Category:Ukrainian people must contain many people who were not citizens of an independent Ukraine. But then the same applies to many many other countries. Choalbaton 22:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Choalbaton. There are currently no members of one that would not belong in the other. National Space Agency of Ukraine also doesn't make it clear whether any prospective space travellers in the Ukrainian space program will be called "cosmonauts" or something else. According to the NSAU website, there do not seem to be any plans for manned space flight either. siafu 00:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Leaving aside the primary issue, the suggested new name is clearly incorrect as the term "of Ukrainian descent" implies people with Ukrainian forebears who are not Ukrainian themselves. Valiantis 02:42, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose For a couple of reasons. One, according to the naming conventions, combined categories such as Russian and Soviet, etc. should not be used. Instead, seperate Russian and Soviet categories should be maintained as appropriate and articles which belong in both should be so categorized. Two, Ukraine, Russia, and Soviet Union are three seperate and distinct countries. The fact that during some period of time the former two were merged within the later notwithstanding, each deserves its own category if there are appropriate articles to be categorized within. Joshbaumgartner 20:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Nationality is not the same as citizenship.--Mais oui! 12:31, 11 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 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Israeli Science - redundant with Category:Science and technology in Israel
• Category:Israeli Scientists - redundant with Category:Israeli scientists
• Category:Israeli Scientists by Name - redundant with Category:Israeli scientists

Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 19:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Bhoeble 23:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as necessary, then delete. Note that the middle one is a speedy. -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Splash (speedy second for capitalization). siafu 00:43, 8 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. Syrthiss 18:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary category that includes articles that are already in the Category:Rugby union in New Zealand parent category and articles that are already in Category:New Zealand rugby union footballers category. Category:New Zealand rugby union footballers is to be prefered as it a) follows standard naming conventions b) predates the nominated category c) has more members d) has a better categorisation pyramid. GordyB 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose They can exist side by side. The criteria for the two are different and are both clear. Bhoeble 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the criteria? I don't think there is a single article in Category:New Zealand rugby union footballers that wouldn't qualify for [[:Category:All Blacks].GordyB 19:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then a lot less effort has been put into covering New Zealand rugby union than the national sports of other countries, but wikipedia has hardly got going yet, so that will change. Bhoeble 14:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unnecessary overcat. Soltak | Talk 19:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I'm not an expert on this, but in my understanding you have to be selected to be a member of the All Blacks, but any rubgy union player in New Zealand would fit in the other category. Since some articles fit in the smaller group and all fit in the larger group, it seems reasonable to have both. But until the NZ rubgy category explodes, it may not be necessary.--Mike Selinker 19:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think most male Kiwis have played rugby union at some point, it is their national sport. To be worthy of an article as rugby union player you would almost certainly have to be an international. The only rugby union player that I can think of with an article but no international caps is Andy Farrell and that's a pretty unique situation. There's no need for a category to cater for non-capped players.GordyB 21:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename. "All Blacks" is simply local NZ jargon. Meaning can be easily misinterpreted by everyone else to refer to black people, e.g. 12.73.198.134 20:54, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both If there aren't any articles about uncapped players yet, eg Super 14 players, which is pretty unlikely, there surely will be soon. "All Blacks" is not "local jargon". It is understood by everyone in the world with the slightest acquaintance with rugby union. Choalbaton 22:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And to everyone else (the vast majority of the world), it suggests primarily something to do with race or else makes no sense at all. Stop thinking locally.12.73.195.177 02:04, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the cat would be applied to rugby players the context would be clear. The fact that everyone in the world will not recognise a term is not in itself a reason not to use that term as the name of a category. The "vast majority of the world" would not understand many specialised terms in science, philosophy, sport etc etc. which would nonetheless be suitable as category names within an appropriate hierarchy. Valiantis 02:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can only get to this category via articles and categories relevant to rugby and/or New Zealand. Bhoeble 14:34, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep to both. For two reasons. 1) To be an All Black, a person has to represent New Zealand internationally. Not all New Zealand rugby union footballers have done, or will ever do, this, and though there may be few articles so far on non-internationals, that doesn't mean that will always be the case. 2) In the early years of international rugby, there were several occasions when the All Blacks were on tour when non-New Zealand players had to be drafted into the team at the last minute due to injury. These players were officially All Blacks, but were not New Zealand rugby union footballers (see Eddie Stapleton, for one example). The two categories have a great deal of overlap, but are far from identical. In any case, the fact that Category:All Blacks feeds into Category:National rugby union teams, which Category:New Zealand rugby union footballers doesn't may give some indication of the difference. Grutness...wha? 00:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Grutness. It's the same as with association football: every player of a national team is a player from that country, but not every player from a certain country is a player of the national team of that country. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 01:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Grutness. Valiantis 02:57, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- SimonLyall 03:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Grutness. Notice also that the cat just doesn't contain pleyers but also series that the ABs were in. In future it might be further broekn down into subcats like "AB players" , "Ab coaches" , etc. This is good enough for now though. - SimonLyall 08:35, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's an absurd world where people are willing and able to be offended by something so innocuous. Calsicol 15:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the common, standard descriptor for people who have played for the national team. --Mais oui! 12:26, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for all the reasons stated above. Wallie 14:29, 11 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 ALL (with modification). Syrthiss 18:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the categories below to comply with naming conventions, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Categories by nationality. (Note: Art of Holland and Art of Italy are separate listings below, and since they aren't speedied, I didn't speedy these either.) Sparkit 16:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Art of France -> Category:French art
• Category:Art of Bosnia and Herzegovina -> Category:Bosnia and Herzegovia art
• Category:Art of Hong Kong -> Category:Hong Kong art
• Category:Art in the United States -> Category:American art
• Category:Visual arts in the United Kingdom -> Category:British art
• Category:Art of Spain -> Category:Spanish art
• Category:Art of Russia -> Category:Russian art
• Category:Art of Mexico -> Category:Mexican art
• Category:Art of Germany -> Category:German art
• Category:Art of Andorra -> Category:Andorran art
• Category:Art of Egypt -> Category:Egyptian art
• Rename all Bhoeble 18:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 00:45, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Postdlf 06:32, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: "British art" should probably be "British visual art", since the original uses the "visual" adjective, and there is a category up the ladder named "British arts." Sparkit 04:28, 10 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 SPEEDY. Syrthiss 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated at Category:Flora by country. Also it is the only thing in Category:Flora so that should go to, or perhaps converted into a redirect to Category:Plants MeltBanana 15:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Empty duplicate. Soltak | Talk 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Bhoeble 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, this is an issue of simple pluralization which can be speedied. -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 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. Syrthiss 18:52, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holland is only one part of the Netherlands. This is in Category:Dutch culture and the artists category is called Category:Dutch artists Most such art categories follow the proposed form, which sounds better to me. Calsicol 15:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename. Sparkit 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• As a Dutchman, I vote rename. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:47, 8 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. Syrthiss 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most such categories follow the proposed form, which sounds better to me. Calsicol 15:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename for consistency's sake. Sparkit 15:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:47, 8 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 18:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is ill-defined at best. The naming is gramatically incorrect and the description is irrelevant and fails to define what the category should encompass. Furthermore it would probably include any practicing engineer today (depending on the definition of "computer knowledge"). -- Frodet 14:23, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Carina22 16:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Neither title nor description of this category make any sense to me (though I happen to have worked with three of the five people listed in there). -- JFG 22:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, there being no such thing, nor an article to get us started. -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only Big Brother can have knowledge engineers. siafu 00:48, 8 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 all. Syrthiss 19:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Australian wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of Australia
• Category:Austrian wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of Austria
• Category:French wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of France
• Category:German wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of Germany
• Category:Hungarian wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of Hungary
• Category:Italian wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of Italy
• Category:New Zealand wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of New Zealand
• Category:Polish wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of Poland
• Category:Portuguese wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of Portugal
• Category:South African wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of South Africa
• Category:Spanish wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of Spain
• Category:Swiss wine regions --> Category:Wine regions of Switzerland
• Rename all. As per naming conventions. - Darwinek 12:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Carina22 16:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Bhoeble 18:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, and make this a NC if it's not. -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 00:50, 8 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 19:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Students' Unions to Category:United States student governments[edit]

Should this be called United States student governments since this is the usual term in the United States for them? (For example, the category for Canada is Category:Canadian Students' Associations.) If there's no objection, I'd like to move this to Category:United States student governments; this will still remain a subcategory of Category:Students' unions. OCNative 07:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. The third and fourth capitals should do in any case. Carina22 16:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Not American, but are they really called that? They're called Students' Unions in Britiain, or "student politics" at best. (They're also called a "waste of time", and a rename along those lines is also acceptable to me.) -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Student governments of the United States". They're not really called anything, usually, as members will refer to themselves as "student body president/treasurer/brownnoser/goody two-shoes, etc., but calling them "United States student governments" makes them sound like official bodies of this country in some fashion. siafu 00:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Student union" in the U.S. commonly refers to a student union building and not the organization (which itself takes many widely differing forms, some of which cannot reasonably be called a student union or student association).- choster 21:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Student governments in the United States". "In" unambiguously indicates location, whereas "of" could indicate officiality. ~~ N (t/c) 16:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from closing admin - no consensus other than to rename. If the editors participating in this discussion can come to a final name decision on the talk page I will change this to RENAME. --Syrthiss 19:43, 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. Syrthiss 19:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename; non-standard. Every other category for college basketball, or college football for that matter, is in the format "(Short school name) (Nickname) (sport) players." — Dale Arnett 03:19, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. --Mike Selinker 19:58, 7 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 19:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a defining attribute for a school. The category is clutter and a distraction from more the important subcategories in Category:Schools. Delete. CalJW 02:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Megamix^? 06:15, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary overcat. Soltak | Talk 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to what? Soltak | Talk 22:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't most/all schools have one, or is this only in the US? Vegaswikian 18:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly. None of the schools I went to had a mascot, and I've never heard of any other Dutch school with a mascot. Aecis ^{Mr. Mojo risin'} 22:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Choalbaton 22:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for overwhelming irrelevance. If it's already mentioned in the articles, that's more than enough. -Splash^talk 00:08, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - you'd have to put just about every American school in this cat. Benami
• Delete and maybe replace with a "Schools with unusual mascot" category. Dylan 21:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Don't create categories out of trivia. Postdlf 06:34, 9 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 Speedied. Syrthiss 20:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard. Rename. CalJW 01:07, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Is this on the list of speediable conventions? Bhoeble 18:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. It really should be a speedy. siafu 00:53, 8 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. Syrthiss 20:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non standard. Rename Category:Puerto Rican businesspeople to match the other 43 subcats of Category:Businesspeople by nationality. CalJW 00:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:54, 8 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 20:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard in several ways and also empty. Delete. CalJW 00:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Bhoeble 18:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't find any analogous categories for other nationalities/ethnicities. siafu 00:56, 8 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.