< July 14	July 16 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 17:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I need this category deleted because I found a similar category for Treehouse TV shows. Mr. C.C. 01:36, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated by creator. --tjstrf 01:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD G7. googl t 18:12, 16 July 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 regarding 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 split out country categories (cfd not needed for this) --Kbdank71 17:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To follow other categories in Category:Companies by country. David Kernow 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Split per Vegaswikian below. David Kernow 22:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC), updated 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is the main category for aircraft manufacturers. Category:Aircraft manufacturers by country could be created as a subcategory, but it would probably be better not to do so. Choalbaton 01:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split all of the by country categories into a new sub cat Category:Aircraft manufacturers by country. There are other articles in there so the first suggestion would have created some additional issues. Vegaswikian 06:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Thanks for your suggestion, Vegaswikian; have amended my vote accordingly. Regards, David Kernow 02:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Choalbaton Twittenham 11:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you also oppose the split of the contents into the by country subcat? Vegaswikian 01:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see what the proposed split does to help readers. The parent Category:Aircraft manufacturers isn't that big anyway and I guess that there isn't going to be an article Aircraft manufacturers by country. And I'm not instantly convinced about adopting the standard Category:Companies by country here because aerospace is one of the fields where international projects/companies are most common. --Mereda 08:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Brought to CfD as it's the only category in its Category:Companies by country group not suffixed "by country"... Do you think the other categories there should lose their "by country" suffixes...?  Unsure, David Kernow 14:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Split per Vegaswikian. -Sean Curtin 05:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per Vegaswikian. Caerwine Caerwhine 17:15, 18 July 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 regarding 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 17:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Albums by sales
• Category:Gold certified albums in the UK
• Category:Gold certified albums in the US
• Category:Platinum certified albums in the UK
• Category:Platinum certified albums in the US
• Category:Silver certified albums in the UK

I don't think albums should be categorized by platinum and gold certifications in different countries. This is not a good idea and could get out of control. --musicpvm 22:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep, this is useful information that is provided at a glance by the an art. being listed in this cat. --Shortfuse 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This may be useful information, but it does not belong in categories. That information should be present in the album/discography articles. It doesn't make sense to create categories for every certification. Where does it end? How about categories for double certification, triple certification, diamond certification, etc? And for how many countries? See Music recording sales certification. There are hundreds of different certifications an album can receive across the world and there are thousands of albums that have received these certifications. This is category clutter. --musicpvm 00:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Perfect candidates for lists. Nothing added by having a category. ---Samuel Wantman 01:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Guess which countries are covered? Albums don't need to be in lots of categories. Too many categories are being created and things should slow down now. Choalbaton 01:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I created Category:Albums by sales just to get the others out of Category:Albums. I'm perfectly fine with them all going away. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 02:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - US and UK sales are the common basis of notability in wikipedia furthermore these are significant information about an album. Year, artist, genre and certification are all included in the infobox and except for the latter all has their related categories. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 10:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for reasons already mentioned. Sumahoy 17:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, information better given elsewhere. Recury 17:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Casper Claiborne 22:14, 16 July 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 regarding 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 17:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as member of Category:Disambiguation categories, like Category:People from Georgia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename it and subcat Category:Avifauna of Georgia Circeus 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Fauna of Georgia as per nom. Rename Category:Avifauna of Georgia to Category:Birds of Georgia (U.S.) state so mere readers like me won't have to sit down and think what it might be for. Casper Claiborne 22:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Category:Avifauna_of_Georgia_to_Category:Avifauna_of_Georgia_.28U.S._state.29 -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:45, 17 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To follow all other contents of Category:Places of worship by city with "in city" wording (Ex Category:Places of worship in New York City, Category:Places of worship in Rome, etc.). Kurieeto 19:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 22:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 11:55, 17 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I have no doubt that these people are notable and that they are fans, but I don't see how this category can ever be populated effectively or be useful to anyone. Brian G 18:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It's trivial and POV. Also, category names should never begin with "notable". --musicpvm 22:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hobbies are not encyclopedic. Choalbaton 01:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and other comments. Casper Claiborne 22:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If we delete this, we also have to delete Category:Notable baseball fans and possibly others. I would vote weak keep to both, but we have to do the same with both.BoojiBoy 00:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I will nominate the baseball category separately as it is rather late to add it to this discussion. Chicheley 11:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and per musicpvm. TheGrappler 20:46, 18 July 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 regarding 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 17:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is barely maintained; most articles for NT are in the Windows category. Cwolfsheep 18:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent category as proposed by Cwolfsheep. (Windows NT -- the product, not the WP article -- isn't maintained anymore, and its XP descendant is barely maintained, but that's neither here nor there.) There aren't Windows subcats for all the other notable versions like 3.1, 95, nor 2000, so the nominated subcat isn't needed for consistency. Barno 22:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Whilst Windows NT was a product, it covers many versions, as it is a technoology (The Windows 2000 boot screen deos state 'Based on NT Technology'); So, I'd expect the category to have articles for NT 3.1, NT 3.5, NT 4.0, 2000, XP and Vista. Perhaps a rename of the category to Windows NT Technology Would be in order, instead? Ratarsed 07:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the NT-and-descendants line needs a subcat. The parent category is good enough, and each article's text should have clarification on NT-line vs. 3.1/95/98/Me-line (if relevant) regardless of whether it happens to have a category tag at the bottom. Barno 14:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Nathan Mercer 01:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Windows NT was different from most of the previous Windows versions so breaking these out makes sense. The fact that some related articles are not in the correct subcategory is not a reason to delete. A rename to Category:Windows NT Technology would be acceptable. Some of the articles in that cat are NT specific. Vegaswikian 19:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In doing a little research, Category:Microsoft Windows is over 200 entries with several subcats so adding these articles back in would make it more difficult to navigate. I'll probably split out XP and Vista as sub cats to try and make the overall category a bit more manageable. It was interesting to see a subcat for Vista fonts, but not for Vista. Vegaswikian 20:06, 24 July 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 regarding 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 redirect --Kbdank71 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:People from Asheville, North Carolina. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to redirect per nom. David Kernow 22:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete -- this is not a well-known global name, so no redirect is required. --William Allen Simpson 16:34, 23 July 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 regarding 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, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the conventional form. Honbicot 18:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 22:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I don't think there is a standard. The categories are split between Foo neighborhoods and Neighborhoods of Foo. I don't see "in" being used for the categories at the city level at all. - EurekaLott 12:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In which case, I think I'd support "Neighbourhoods/Neighborhoods in X" as the standard... Anyone else?  Forseeable problems?  Thanks, David Kernow 14:13, 18 July 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 regarding 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 17:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a relatively new category. Category:Cities in Iran is large and well established, but this category only contains a list, which is also now in Category:Geography of Iran. There was also an article about a place which was said to be a town, so I have moved it to Category:Towns in Iran. That makes this category redundant and therefore I am suggesting deletion. However if anyone can confirm that there is no distinction between a city and a town in Iran, the correct action would be to merge Category:Cities in Iran into Category:Cities and towns in Iran.Honbicot 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it is confirmed that there is no distinction locally, as above. Honbicot 18:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom. Twittenham 11:49, 16 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Companies of Chile, to match other Category:Companies by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 23:01, 15 July 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 regarding 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 17:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Batman storylines or Category:Batman stories, depending on outcome of earlier discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Batman storylines.--Mike Selinker 12:16, 23 July 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 regarding 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 both. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete. No preference. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. For example, Jennifer Lopez is already in Category:American film actors and Category:Puerto Rican-American actors. That is enough; these categories are unnecessary. Parent cats Category:Latin people or Category:Latinos do not even exist, so these should not either. --musicpvm 22:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per --musicpvm Sumahoy 17:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per --musicpvm Casper Claiborne 22:17, 16 July 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 regarding 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 17:14, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do personal user categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and direct Emir214 to relevant policy/guideline. David Kernow 23:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but where will I put all my user pages? - Emir214 04:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • One method to keep track of them (without making your own list of links to them) is to use the Special:Prefixindex page with your username as the prefix and the namespace set to "User", i.e. this. Hope that helps!  Best wishes, David Kernow 04:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks! But how about my user pages on my alternative account (User:Windows72106)? - Emir214 11:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do the same, but with "Windows72106" set as the prefix, i.e. this. Regards, David 02:48, 17 July 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 regarding 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 cat redirect --Kbdank71 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:People from Osaka Prefecture. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to redirect per nom. David Kernow 23:03, 15 July 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 regarding 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 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Montenegrin actors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Tim! 12:49, 16 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a category for people who have campaigned for the rights of stage musicals. It certainly needs to be renamed but I would be equally happy to see it deleted as it it liable to attract the articles of every musician who has ever made a token effort on behalf of anything. Chicheley 14:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would prefer a Delete. My personal experience is that musicians often use activism as a means to get publicity. However, more detailed category names (clearly specifying a notable and controversial issue) may be encouraged. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ambuj Saxena Honbicot 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If their activism is notable they can be placed in the specialist categories for civil rights, women's rights etc. Choalbaton 01:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ambuj Saxena Hawkestone 23:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Choalbaton. Eluchil404 18:41, 19 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn --Kbdank71 15:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Child category that has only its own article and is unlikely to grow; the article is already in other categories that are all appropriate for it. Jack 11:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Highly unlikely that this will be developed and its single article is already accessed from other categories. --Jack 11:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep I've managed to grow it to four articles, which while small, is sufficient I think for a category. Caerwine Caerwhine 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply to Weak Keep Re the three articles you have added. Heinrich von Stephan belongs primarily in category:Postmasters; he also has a significant place in category:Postal history; and of course he is deservingly mentioned in the Universal Postal Union article, but that does not mean he needs to be in a category about the UPU. International reply coupon does not belong in the UPU category at all: it was already in category:Postal system which is fine, but it also needs to be in category:Postal stationery - if you put this in UPU then you should put the whole of the postage stamp and postal system articles in there too! Finally, .post is at least sponsored by UPU but in a philatelic category sense it should be in category:Postal services: again, if you put this in UPU then everything should go in UPU. The fact is that UPU is great material for an article and an article only. The various categories about postage and postal systems are designed to cater for everything else and they do, though admittedly you have picked up a couple of stray articles above which did need to be found a home. --Jack 14:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• definitely delete UPU is an organisation that needs an article in its own right, as does any similar organisation, but to make a category of it is absurd: you would make a category about any and all organisations if you did that!! I see it is in the postal organisations category which is where it belongs and that will do. These other three articles should be in postal service or history type categories and I see that's where they are anyway. --AlbertMW 15:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Excellent point. If I type category:Bank of England does it come up red or blue? Precisely. It is an organisation and so has its own article but it is not a category and the UPU is precisely the same. Once again, however, I have a serious issue re the value of this discussion page and the way that positive progress to improve a project from within the project is hindered by people with an agenda who inhabit these pages and do not have an interest in the project concerned. This is a serious flaw in Wikipedia and someone should do something about it. --Jack 05:31, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Organizations do indeed have categories, when there are sufficient numbers of articles to warrant them. Using the banking example, Category:European System of Central Banks and Category:Federal Reserve both exist. Now back to the three articles I added, one is about the man who did the most to found the UPU, and the other two are about services sponsored by the UPU, and which are not available outside the UPU system. If there is to be a Category:Universal Postal Union, all three articles that I added should be in this category, and I would appreciate it if the category were not removed again from those articles unless the category should happen to be deleted. I also found another article, S10 (UPU standard) to add to the category. The reason for the weak qualifier I initially appended to my keep is that there aren't many existing articles that would warrant having thus category, but I'm not worried about insufficient articles now. Caerwine Caerwhine 08:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Objection Caerwine is out of order here. He has deliberately added these three (or four) articles to the category after it was nominated for deletion and before the discussion has been completed. The category was nominated when I investigated it as part of a project recategorisation exercise and it was found to have only its one eponymous article in it, with no evident prospect of further use by the project. I have asked the project for its views and so far only one member has responded (see AlbertMW above). I have offered to Caerwine that I personally will restore these articles to the category if the decision is to keep the category but until the discussion is completed, the category should be restored to its pre-nomination status with one article. I have asked Caerwine via his talk page to do this so the ball is in his court. --Jack 13:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rebuttal The only reason made in the original nomination was that the category had only one article and was not likely to grow. In such a circumstance, finding appropriate articles that would fit in the category is not only not out of order, but generally considered a useful service. Now if the proponent wishes to argue that it is an inappropriate category for Wikipedia to have based on other grounds, I urge him to do so, but on the basis of his original argument of insufficient articles, or on his secondary point of organizations don't get categories, he is mistaken. Caerwine Caerwhine 16:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm of the opinion that only organizations with lots of related articles should get their own categories. This kind of messes up this section's categorization scheme as there aren't any other organizations with their own categories at the same level. The other articles added to it are better categorized elsewhere. Recury 17:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It seems to me some of you don't really understand the UPU as an organization that sets the control standards for most of the mail communications in the world today. In that respect it is not at all like the Category:Bank of England example at all. Several articles already listed in Category:Philately and Category:Postal system should IMHO also be in the UPU category. This category should be much larger than it is now but most people forget about it because its influence is so much behind the scenes in relationship to sending our mail. As an test, do a search to see how often the entry UPU or Universal Postal Union is linked to from articles that are not yet in the category but should be. The IRC is definitely a candidate as are some more of the items in List of philatelic topics, like Express mail, Illegal stamps, Eugène Borel, Universal Code (Post Code), PostEurop, Ruth Yannatta Goldway and of course Mail to name a few that are easy to find. While I disagree with Jack on the subject of deletion, I do agree that this category discussion really belongs more to the philatelists, portal and project users than to those who are not very familiar with the topic. I cannot agree with User:AlbertMW that having this category is absurd. It is definitely useful and so long as writers remember to use the category it will grow. In fact I forgot to add it as a category to Express mail that I reorganised, partially rewrote and merged pages into recently. ww2censor 18:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some of your suggestions for articles to add to this category don't make much sense to me. For instance, I considered Express mail, but rejected it as it dealt with express mail in general and not the EMS Express Mail Service sponsored by the UPU in particular (which if it had an article of its own would deserve this category), and as for Mail, considering that the concept predates and will outlast the UPU, I can't see this being an appropriate category for that article. Ms. Goldway's link to the UPU is so tenuous, I wouldn't add this category to her article either. Categories are not meant to be a substitute for "What links here". Caerwine Caerwhine 15:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Caerwine Comment EMS did have a page of its own[1] but it was only a short 2 sentence article and by discussion it was agreed to merge with Express mail. There will always be a global regulatory body and even though the UPU came into existence long after mail services started, I think the mail systems will outlast the UPU, I doubt it you will be proven correct. Please remember the UPU sets many of the standards for mail services worldwide and that alone IMHO confirms the need for a category. ww2censor 16:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn and keep Thank you, Ww2censor. If another member of the project has a use for the category then I am happy to keep it and will try to populate it personally. No problem with that. I hope AlbertMW is comfortable with it but I am willing to gamble that he is. I suggest for starters that it is lifted from level 2 and placed in level 1. But I have a real problem with this deletion discussion procedure which is bureaucratic, subversive, "politically correct", a complete and utter waste of everyone's time and a whole host of other words that I will not use in case there any kids reading. No wonder several very good contributors have decided that Wikipedia is not for them. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sound good to me, so let's try to populate the category with appropriate articles. ww2censor 16:49, 17 July 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 regarding 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 to Category:West Ham United F.C. players --Kbdank71 15:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? All these players could be listed as players of West Ham. An unwieldly name, a sub-division which is unencyclopedic and sets a dangerous precedent Trident13 11:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Category doesn't serve any encyclopedic purpose. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. David Kernow 23:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too many categories about fringe aspects of people and things are being created. Choalbaton 01:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Why don't you just merge this category with the West Ham United F.C. players like it does on every other club except West Ham. Kingjamie 17:22 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Category:West Ham United F.C. players in case any of the articles are not in that category already. Casper Claiborne 22:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There is always a lot of talk on Merge versus Delete in these pages. My suggestion in this case would support Delete the Category and Merge the data into West Ham United F.C. players. Rgds, - Trident13 08:18, 18 July 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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 00:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete unnecessary child category which has only one article that is also in the parent category; parent itself is unlikely to grow and is not really big enough for sub-cats. Jack 11:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sorting Category:Philatelists brought this category up to 6 articles. I'll grant that the both it and the parent are small enough that I wouldn't have bothered, but it's large enough to keep and several of these articles would otherwise be wanting Category:American people which should ideally be kept as small as possible, as they aren't notable for anythiong except their philately. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not just keep them all in the parent category which is unlikely to get much bigger? --Jack 11:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is standard practice to sort by nationality, as it improves access and ensures articles are accessible from all the relevant parent categories rather than just one of them. Chicheley 12:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn and sorted by six new very small sub-categories --Jack 12:15, 15 July 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 regarding 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 15:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is actually meant here is Category:Moldovan composers, as in "of Moldova" - for composers that were citizens of Moldavia, we have Category:Romanian composers; the present cat is, and is destined to remain, empty. Dahn 11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:18, 15 July 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 regarding 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 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category requires disambiguation from Category:Impressionist painters. Chicheley 09:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Chicheley 09:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Dahn 11:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I have a friend who is one and he says the term "impressionist entertainer" is absurd and has no usage in reality: they are called "impressionists" and that is common knowledge. The impressionist painters belonged to an impressionist movement which is quite different. --AlbertMW 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename In a serious encyclopedia the painters must have at least equal precedence. I'm not bothered about the precise form, so if anyone can suggest something better than the current proposal, I will back them. Honbicot 18:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. When I first read the name, I thought it would include painters. There is no reason it should not be disambiguated as is Category:Impressionist painters. --musicpvm 22:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Either as proposed or to Category:Impressionists (entertainers). Twittenham 11:50, 16 July 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 regarding 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 15:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from July 5 for more opinions. Conscious 07:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge [then] Rename to correct capitalization, article says official name is "Global Television Network" although it usually goes by just "Global" MakeRocketGoNow 18:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge then rename to Category:Global Television Network shows per nom. See below. David Kernow 19:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC), updated 09:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge to Category:Global network shows and skip the recapitalization; consistency with other "television stations by network" categories is better served by "Global network shows" than it is by "Global Television Network shows". The short form name is sufficient — we have Category:CBS network shows rather than Category:Columbia Broadcasting System shows, Category:UPN network shows rather than Category:United Paramount Network shows, and on and so forth. Bearcat 02:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Television series by Global Television Network. - LA @ 06:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Television series by Global Television Network per Lady Aleena. Withdrawing vote in favo/ur of resolution by more-informed folk. David Kernow 09:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC), updated 18:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't support that option; it implies Global as the producer of the series, and thus can't include a series aired on the network but produced by another company. Also, it takes Global out of the naming convention otherwise in place in its parent category, which is "(NETWORK NAME) network shows". Bearcat 02:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize that the category was for all programming on that network. - LA @ 12:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• COMMENT "Television series by Global..." means something different to me... it would be shows produced by Global, not aired by Global. 132.205.45.148 00:31, 8 July 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 regarding 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 15:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Transportation in Asia --> Category:Transport in Asia
• Category:Transportation in Afghanistan --> Category:Transport in Afghanistan
• Category:Transportation in Bahrain --> Category:Transport in Bahrain
• Category:Transportation in Cambodia --> Category:Transport in Cambodia
• Category:Transportation in China --> Category:Transport in China
• Category:Transportation in Macau --> Category:Transport in Macau
• Category:Transportation in Tianjin --> Category:Transport in Tianjin
• Category:Transportation in the Republic of China --> Category:Transport in the Republic of China
• Category:Transportation in Taiwan --> Category:Transport in Taiwan
• Category:Transportation in Indonesia --> Category:Transport in Indonesia
• Category:Transportation in Iran --> Category:Transport in Iran
• Category:Transportation in Iraq --> Category:Transport in Iraq
• Category:Transportation in Israel --> Category:Transport in Israel
• Category:Transportation in Israel by city --> Category:Transport in Israel by city
• Category:Transportation in Haifa --> Category:Transport in Haifa
• Category:Transportation in Jerusalem --> Category:Transport in Jerusalem
• Category:Transportation in Tel Aviv --> Category:Transport in Tel Aviv
• Category:Transportation companies of Israel --> Category:Transport companies of Israel
• Category:Transportation in Palestine --> Category:Transport in Palestine
• Category:Transportation in Japan --> Category:Transport in Japan
• Category:Transportation disasters in Japan --> Category:Transport disasters in Japan
• Category:Transportation companies of Japan --> Category:Transport companies of Japan
• Category:Transportation in Jordan --> Category:Transport in Jordan
• Category:Transportation in Kuwait --> Category:Transport in Kuwait
• Category:Transportation in Laos --> Category:Transport in Laos
• Category:Transportation in Lebanon --> Category:Transport in Lebanon
• Category:Transportation in Mongolia --> Category:Transport in Mongolia
• Category:Transportation in Korea --> Category:Transport in Korea
• Category:Transportation in North Korea --> Category:Transport in North Korea
• Category:Transportation in South Korea --> Category:Transport in South Korea
• Category:Transportation in the Philippines --> Category:Transport in the Philippines
• Category:Transportation in Oman --> Category:Transport in Oman
• Category:Transportation in Syria --> Category:Transport in Syria
• Category:Transportation in Saudi Arabia --> Category:Transport in Saudi Arabia
• Category:Transportation in Thailand --> Category:Transport in Thailand
• Category:Transportation in the United Arab Emirates --> Category:Transport in the United Arab Emirates
• Category:Transportation in Ho Chi Minh City --> Category:Transport in Ho Chi Minh City
• Category:Transportation in Vietnam --> Category:Transport in Vietnam
• Rename all to match main articles. Europe and Oceania were already renamed. Africa and South America are on the same way now. - Darwinek 07:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adding the two or three mistakes you hope for on top of the two already made doesn’t make any of them right. It just makes you wrong five times instead of only twice. Most people don't enjoy boasting about the mistakes they make. They often try to hide them. But I guess you're an exception to this. What was the thinking, one wonders behind the first error above? England (in terms of use of English) equals all of Europe? Or that the “international” version of a British magazine you once read in the library did it this way so you figured that’s the way it must be done all over the world. Something like that? Something nearly as benighted as the nonsense put forth by some of the rename voters below? That all non-U.S. countries equals England (in terms of English word choices)? Let’s see if this checks out with the reality. (This--checking with reality--is something I really think you ought to try once and while.) Der Spiegel is Europe's largest and Germany's most influential weekly magazine, having a circulation of around one million per week. If the Europe (“transport”) vote was right, I’d expect this august periodical to use the “European” standard (as voted in by the Wiki-sockpuppet crowd, that is) in their international English version publications, right? Wrong. They use “transportation.” Mayr, M. & Neef, C. (2006, July 10). A former superpower rises again. Speigel Online. Retrieved on July 18, 2006. See "Twenty-five million Russians still live below a poverty line that doesn't even account for the skyrocketing costs of real estate and apartments, public transportation...". Millions of people use Wikipedia, but only a handful “fringe language revisionists” like yourself, seem to vote for these renamings. And even at that most of the "votes for" end up being "silent votes", that is votes with no reason at all. (Sockpuppets?) Just because. How realiable can that be? And how proud can you be of yourself to have "won" that in kind of arbitrary travesty? The change with the Europe article, doesn’t mean you’re “right”, it just means, in light of the Spiegel evidence, that you committed an error. And you seem insistent on multiplying your errors, now.
• Rename all This may be pushing it a bit, but if all countries use transport except the U.S. and its dependencies it won't be necessary to check individual cases. Chicheley 09:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turns out: 1) The Manual of Style, in the section on national varieties of English, would urge against this wholesale change; 2) There is nothing in the Manual of Style that says anything whatsoever that resembles "articles about everything/everyone but the U.S. and its dependencies should use British English." (Views like this are based on the false notion that American English is "deviant", and everything else is "normative". Different dialects, are, rather, just different.) That would be as divisive as "articles about everything/everyone but the UK and its dependencies should use American English." 3) There is nothing in WP that says that articles in countries that aren't primarily English-speaking should follow any dialectal rules aside from: follow the dialect/spelling of the first author. 4) But if there were such a rule/guideline, the idea that Japan, mainland China, Israel, Mexico, etc., would use British English borders on absurd. 5) I recommend we not crush Wikipedia diversity, and vote against this proposal. Indeed, I'm hoping Darwinek will withdraw it. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-17 17:07 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 23:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename only those where Commonwealth spelling is used. No one would be looking for the Philippine categories in Commonwealth spelling, for instance, except for those who're unaware of the difference in spelling. — Instantnood 11:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Should it be transport(ation) in the Ho Chi Minh City? — Instantnood 11:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Twittenham 11:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 11:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename (most of them). This violates WP guidelines on national varieties of English, and constitutes orthographic imperialism. The Middle Eastern countries, aside from Israel, could be renamed, but certainly not most of the other ones. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-17 14:06 (UTC)
• Do not rename. "To match main articles"? You Darwinek seem not to understand wikipedia policy about spelling. You incorrectly changed the names of a bunch of articles, and now you're using that, a violation, to help support a massive change to British English? That is not cool. I'm sure it's innocent, but it is not on. For countries where English isn't an official language, the first spelling (or word) used is what should be retained. We want to have diversity here, because it is that which manifests and creates respect. I recommend you withdraw this proposal. It is bad for wikipedia. --WikiFair1 16:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not withdraw this. If you are right, majority of users will surely vote oppose. Calm down guys. -- Darwinek 18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If WikiFair1 is right, a majority of users will surely vote oppose? Votes don’t necessarily result in correct choices being made. Take a look at the democratically elected leaders around the world today, for instance. There’s always risk involved in votes--especially with an ignorant public. Theoretically, voting by an educated and informed public was supposed to be a useful way of making decisions. But here’s why in reality--particularly if all the criteria is not met--all it results in is a farce. Voters, like Chicheley, for example, would appear both uneducated and uninformed (on how “transportation” is used quite often, all over Asia, but also even in British newspapers domestically). Nothing you have presented shows yourself to be any less ignorant of the facts than Chicheley. Chicheley, basing his sweeping “rename all” vote on an “if”. He doesn’t know and hasn’t bothered to check whether or not his supposition has the slightest merit (I've demonstrated below that it doesn't) and yet he casts an "all" vote. He and you, the blind (he and you--and your respective sock puppets) leading the dumb and blind (most of the “transport” voters, as they are without voice as to their reasons, adding no statement after their vote. W.C. 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Stop shouting, get an account if you don't have one. and read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. As you would know if you were a regular here the etiquette of this page is that people may state, "per nom" or "per X" if they agree with a previous statement. If everyone was required to write a paragraph saying the same thing in different words the number of participants would be a fraction of its present inadequate level.Chicheley 19:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • • 1) W.C. is a regular and does have an account. 2) Chicheley, I guess it's better to write a whole, explanatory paragraph than just go along for the ride. Who said that "all countries use transport except the U.S. and its dependencies"? That's utterly false. JackLumber. 21:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Jack. As for reading the rules, if the likes of Chicheley and Darwinek would bother to read the rules/guidelines (and abide by them), then 1.) they'd never have brought this vote up to begin with, and we could all put our energies into producing more articles rather than educating C. and D. (since their proposals always start with "if such and such..." a kind of admission they never bothered to check themselves if their renaming has any foundation at all and probably never will do the slightest research, i.e., don't bother them with the facts) about how "transporation" is used around the world-- and even in their own backyard (and why do the rules always apply to the "other" guy?); 2.) local usage, even supported by some of the "oppose" (I guess they went for C and D's curve ball) voters, is a red herring, as the guidelines direct us to the language of the intended audience for the article, (not the locale of the topic), i.e., are we trying to inform the Chinese about Chinese things or are we trying to inform the rest of the world about China--I say the latter--and in any case, that is the debate that should get first priority. W.C. 00:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Nonomy 21:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the rename per WikiFair1 and Cultural Freedom's reasoning. There is a larger issue about consistency vs. 'orthographic imperialism' in categories here, and it seems very precipitate to decide without a more general consensus. I'll raise the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories). Ziggurat 22:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per WikiFair1, Cultural Freedom, and Ziggurat. Proposition clearly violates Wikipedia policy and common sense too. JackLumber. 12:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename. W.C. 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Even by the standards of some of the most vocal All Rename proponents (their gross misunderstanding about how these two words are used elsewhere outside of their own provincial realm), their argument does not hold up. For starters, Chinese newspapers which have staff members who are British friendly in spelling (notice "Labour Day") use "transportation system" for example, and not "transport system". Miao, X. (2006, April 25). Workers frazzled by holiday hustle. China Daily. Retrieved on July 18, 2006. Also see page 01 of print edition. Similar examples with the by-lines of Chinese authors are quite easy to come by. Fang, X. (2006, January, 20). Former Taiwanese singer returns home for reunion. China Daily. Retrieved on July 18, 2006. See "... the transportation process...". (Also see page 01 of print edition.) What's more, and this may surprise many in the All-Transport camp, within England itself there is nothing to support the case for exclusivity in favor of transport. "Transportation", indeed, is alive and well in many an article written by the British and for the British. Randerson, J. (2006, July 6). Trident convoys carry risk of nuclear blast. The Guardian. Retrieved on July 18, 2006. See "...risks posed by the transportation of the weapons at 2.4 in a billion." Donegan, L. (2006, July 8). Ireland labours over Ryder Cup roadworks. The Guardian. Retrieved on July 18, 2006. See "...the smooth transportation of 40,000 fans daily from Dublin..." So as we see, in fact, the British record itself, among professionals, supports a policy of tolerance and plurality rather than the dictatorial imposition of the usage of one word to the exclusion of the other. I think this evidence exposes the All-Transport camp as a radical and excessive fringe group, even among their British kin. Wikipedia is a neutral entity, and not a haven for revisionist fringe groups, most of whom as we can see above, can’t even state a reason for their vote. W.C. 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transportation is sometimes used as a verb in British English. See if you can find a British publication which describes the topic as "transportation". Chicheley 20:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transportation sometimes used as a verb, you say? (Folks, these are the kind of guys trying to "teach" us how English ought to be used?) Again, you're dead wrong about that, too. You can't be literate in English and not know the difference between nouns and verbs. So here we have a vote, led by one 20 year old Czech ESL student of English (some Wiki-authority made this guy and administrator!), plus one guy, you, trying to tell the rest of us native speakers a word ending in -ion can be used as a verb. What kind of a circus has Wikepedia devolved into! You saw it all here, folks. (I rest my case.) W.C. 00:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect all of the unused choices. A reasonable guess should work or, failing that, point you to the right place. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There should not be a wholesale renaming. Only rename those where local use of "transport" can be demonstrated, and these can be nominated and discussed one by one. There is no way to enforce standards when language is not standardized. Rather than spend a great deal of time with language differences we should follow the general rule: Use local language when appropriate, if many variations exist, use the one chosen by the first editor. -- Samuel Wantman 22:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am reasonably confident these all currently follow local naming practices, due to the efforts of user:CalJW who systemically examined effectively all country related categories and renamed to consistent namings (without artificially imposing British or American usage). This user seems no longer to be active, and thus isn't around to defend his work, but I'm sure many of the long time regulars here remember him. Certainly one or two of these may not follow local naming practices, but if so please provide specific evidence of local naming practices. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all The current randomness helps no-one. Hawkestone 12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming. If people feel the need to do this they should go country by country and provide evidence of the local use. Otherwise policy is not to change between recognized variants as transport/transportation. Eluchil404 18:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Oppose. For the reasons above. What is random is a reflection of the differences in the language. If someone really needs to push for a change, why not return to using transportation for all of these categories. That's about where we were when this all started. If that caused confusion then that change was wrong and should be undone. Vegaswikian 22:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a misrepresentation. The names were inconsistent before the last round of changes. ReeseM 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for consistency. ReeseM 02:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Inconsistency makes Wikipedia look amateurish. Landolitan 19:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - A clean, uncluttered desk is the sign of a sick mind. Gentgeen 00:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- there are now plenty of references demonstrating that the prior renames were incorrect, and these should not be added to the mistakes. Bring back for each individual country and copious documentation. --William Allen Simpson 16:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Transportation in the Philippines." For future reference, there is a Department of Transportation and Communications (Philippines), and the Philippines was formerly an American colony, hence Filipinos use "American English". No vote on the others. --Howard the Duck 12:37, 25 July 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 regarding 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 15:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- incorrectly nominated in 2006-04-13 17:13:16 --William Allen Simpson 06:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No luck finding nomination on April 13 CfD – apologies if I've missed it – can you recall rationale for switching "Russian" and "Soviet"...?  Regards, David Kernow 23:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  As I wrote, it was incorrectly nominated. Somebody subst'd cfdu (not even cfr or cfru) on the category, but didn't post it here at CfD. The rationale (now at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft Archive 10#Engine_category is the ordering of all the others in the Category:Aircraft manufactured by the Soviet Union and Russia. (Yes, I looked all this up before bringing it here. I found it as an old cfdu link that hadn't been removed. Every once in awhile, I stumble across old stuff that got missed or munged.) --William Allen Simpson 00:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh, okay... I wasn't sure what to look for. Thanks for the clarification. Regards, David 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should be split into Category:Russian aircraft engines and Category:Soviet aircraft engines, as should other combined categories such as this. Russia and the Soviet Union are distinct, and not necessarily equal, entities. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Dealing with overlaps for more information. Josh 20:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per William Allen Simpson. Chronological order is logical and there is enough continuity between the USSR and the Russian Federation in this case to justify a single category. Eluchil404 18:33, 19 July 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 regarding 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 14:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More complete name --Howard the Duck 06:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A notice of discussion has been added at Wikipedia:Tambayan Philippines. --Howard the Duck 06:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 23:26, 16 July 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 regarding 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 14:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category pertains to a notable person, but a category with one inclusion? I don't believe much more could fit into this category; it's incredibly pointless. I think this was an ill attempt at an article due to the categories at the bottom of the page. Michael 05:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• UPDATE: Category now has four members.
• Comment: I see no evidence in the page history that this was an attempt at an article; there has never been any body text. --M@rēino 16:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not needed (and who remembers his real name anyway?) Honbicot 18:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category. Each of those pages, all four of them :), can have a See Also as needed. Thinking there is not going to be lots of growth in new articles for the current cat. -- MrDolomite | Talk 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet another reason we need a rationalization of the eponymous categories. Carlossuarez46 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Having before coming here decided to remove the eponymous article from the category, I agree with above. —Centrx→talk • 00:39, 18 July 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 regarding 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horrendously bloated category, as it would include every single fictional character to engage in combat at some point in their lives. I'd like to cite Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_3#Category:Fictional_characters_who_can_fly as precedent for deletion based on being absurdly large. tjstrf 01:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in case it wasn't obvious, I vote Delete. --tjstrf 22:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Eep. While it could be an interesting category, I don't think it works as it stands now. Delete as per fliers.--SarekOfVulcan 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would move towards recatorizing and create seperate categories such as I am thinking and seperating the Japanese manga and anime characters to help with cutting down the page size and calling it the Manga and Anime warriors or Manga and Anime fighters. Then create a category for the American TV shows and Movie characters and finally one for the video game warriors. This is all I can think of to help perserve the way how it can connect these kind of Tv series and movies together whever if they were to be for American or Japanese created series. -Adv193 04:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The key reason as I can see why this page had this much trouble was due to cramming all those different subjects of TV, Movies, Anime, Comics and Video Games togther. -Adv193 05:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even when divided by genre, it would still be an absurdly huge category. The problem with this category is not whether it is properly subdivided, it's that it's an unmanagablely large collection of information. Also, as currently used, it is indiscriminate. A "warrior" in the context of this category is anyone who fights. Any work of fiction, be it comics, manga, movies, radio drama, television series, or illuminated editions of Canterbury Tales probably has at least one character who has engaged in some form of combat. This is a fictional characters by nature category in which the "nature" we are describing is nearly universal. We might as well have "Fictional people with eyes" as a category.--tjstrf 06:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Ill-defined, inapproprately applied in many cases, similar to Category:Fictional anti-heroes in that this information is better presented in article space. CovenantD 13:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete poor name, see "What's a warrior?" above -- MrDolomite | Talk 00:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 01:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ~ Hibana 02:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 22:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I'm sure that there are characters in here who would better fit in Category:Fictional soldiers, Category:Fictional mercenaries, and so on. -Sean Curtin 05:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Too encompassing a category. Voice of Treason 10:36, 21 July 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 regarding 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 and ((category redirect)). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy renaming after opposition

• Category:Bjork to Category:Björk -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opppose that would make it hard to use for people with English keyboards. And make duplicate categories appear. 132.205.46.135 22:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. A lot of categories exist featuring diacritical marks - this one would be no harder than them. And, although category redirects aren't perfect, having one at the current category location would easily stop category re-creation. Grutness...wha? 00:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Category:Björk. Michael 05:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current name is correct in English. Chicheley 09:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Category:Björk songs and Category:Björk albums are spelled correctly and so should this be. Her name is not Bjork and should never be spelled that way. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 10:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See http://www.bjork.com. Internet addresses don't have diacretics because they use the English alphabet. This is the English-language wikipedia so it should also use the English alphabet. Chicheley 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Her name clearly uses the umlaut. We just approved a category change to category:Raven-Symoné albums, so this should be OK too.--Mike Selinker 13:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, Björk is her correct name, and categories should be consistent with article names. Also see Category:Jennifer López, Category:Mýa albums, Category:Céline Dion albums, Category:Beyoncé albums, etc. --musicpvm 17:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • not to mention Category:Blue Öyster Cult albums :) Grutness...wha? 19:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect Category:Bjork to Category:Björk. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, with (hard?) redirect at Category:Bjork. Suggest redirection renders the argument from keyboard restraints impotent; as regards diacritics not being part of the English alphabet, why have thousands of English-speaking writers used them for hundreds of years?  They're very useful, not simply to indicate that a word is not English, but also how to try pronouncing the word. Ignore them if you don't like them; the letters of the word are still there. Puzzled, David Kernow 23:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per I support using proper spelling--T-rex 02:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I support using proper English spelling. The English alphabet is not inferior or illegitimate. Twittenham 11:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right - it isn't. Which is why it uses diacritical marks where necessary, rather than having to use substandard spellings. It may be common practice to avoid them, but you'd be naïve to assume they don't exist to some extent in English - especially for loan words and other terms imported from foreign languages. They still have a rôle to play, and removing them renders the language declassé. Grutness...wha? 00:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Correct spelling includes the diacritics, put a redirect on the Bjork link if need be, but WP is not the lowest-common-denominator...if you want to avoid the diacritic edit the "Simple English" WP. Carlossuarez46 22:36, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and redirect. -Sean Curtin 05:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Sean Curtin. Passer-by 14:30, 22 July 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 regarding 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 (list articles already exist for UK and US - I will wait a week or so before doing Australia to give someone a chance to listify it). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC) Update: I have cursorily listified it myself at List of number-one albums (Australia)! --RobertG ♬ talk 10:19, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:US number one albums to Category:American number-one albums
• Category:UK number one albums to Category:British number-one albums
• Category:Australian number one albums to Category:Australian number-one albums

The first two are not consistent with other American/British categories, and during previous discussions, others have stated that the hyphen in "number-one" is gramatically correct. --musicpvm 00:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify and Delete The information here is much better suited to list articles, such as the already existing
  • List of number-one albums (Ireland)
  • List of number-one albums (UK)
  • List of number-one albums (United States)
  • List of number-one albums from the 1980s (UK)
  • List of number-one albums from the 1990s (UK)
  • List of number-one albums from the 2000s (UK)

Lists not only would convey the same information as a category, but would be able to indicate also when the album was number-one in a particular country, as well as who was saying they were number-one. Alternatively, if kept as categories, rename as Category:Number-one albums in the United States, Category:Number-one albums in the United Kingdom, and Category:Number-one albums in Australia respectively, since I doubt if all the albums in each category would be Category:American albums, Category:British albums, and Category:Australian albums respectively, as the proposed rename would suggest. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Where does it stop? Some albums reached number 1 in dozens of countries, and Wikipedia should not focus on a few English speaking countries. Chicheley 09:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd be fine with a deletion too. --musicpvm 22:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete for reason already stated. Better as lists than as categories. --Samuel Wantman 01:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete for reason already stated. Better as lists than as categories. Sumahoy 17:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Casper Claiborne 22:23, 16 July 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 regarding 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 in line with main article, and cat-redirect. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Power station seems to be the more usual term internationally, is the present title of the main article for the category, and is somewhat less ambiguous, given this disambig. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alai (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, and I've added Category:Power plants by country, Category:Power plants in Lithuania, and Category:Power plants in the United States as well. It probably would be a good idea to also do Category:Hydroelectric power plants and Category:Nuclear power plants and their subcats (somof whic use plant and others use station), but they are reasonably unambiguous as is and can wait until this rename can be decided. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per nom.--SarekOfVulcan 03:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Partial support Don't rename the U.S. category. The Americans are entitled to use their own corrupted form of English. Chicheley 09:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This really isn't a American English v. Commonwealth English thing here. About one third of the articles in Category:Power plants in the United States and its subcats use plant in the title, one third use station, and the final third don't use either. American English usage supports using either term, but since station is unambiguous, basic Wiki-principles call for us to use the unambiguous one of the pair of alternatives. Caerwine Caerwhine 11:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you American? Chicheley 12:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • She/He has categorized her user page into Category:Wikipedians in South Carolina. Circeus 20:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • While most people call them plants in the U.S., industry usually uses stations. So as one American, I don't see the rename as a problem as long as a cat redirect is left in place for the U.S. Category. Vegaswikian 06:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have never in my life heard the term "power station" used to describe a power plant. I have, however, used it to describe an Electrical substation.--M@rēino 16:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial support per Chicheley as American users are giving out contradictory signals. However it is educational for Americans to be exposed to non-American English in global and non-U.S. categories. Choalbaton 01:09, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Support per Vegaswikian. Picking a global generating company, International Power, they state on their homepage[2] "A global power generating company with interests in 37 power stations in 18 countries..." (emphasis mine) Ratarsed 14:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment International Power is based in London. Sumahoy 17:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sierra Pacific Resources does use stations as part of the name of their generators in their annual report. They also use generating plants. Vegaswikian 23:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per noms. Casper Claiborne 22:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect I'm an American and I've heard both used. Either category name is fine with me, both names should work, and one should redirect to the other. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. Ditto what ProveIt says. Both terms are used and understood everywhere. Yes, power plant is more common in the U.S. and power station outside of the U.S., but so what? JackLumber. 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC) (And redirects are cheap.)[reply]

  I didn't believe redirected categories were recommended?

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 regarding 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 14:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To make it clear this category is actually about the Nouvelle Droite movements. Intangible 00:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Query -- Is this another movement than the English variant, so that it needs to be distinguished? We use English equivalents for many other movements. --William Allen Simpson 01:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The Nouvelle Droite has nothing to do with the New Right conservatism linked to Thatcher, but it has influenced "New Right" movements in other European countries. It also has nothing to do with the New Right in the USA, Australia and New Zealand. Intangible 02:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose.--Cberlet 12:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. -- This is another in the relentless campaign by Intangible to totally rewrite the taxonomy of right-wing movements on Wikipedia to support an idiosyncratic POV. The Nouvelle Droite in English is "New Right." There are dozens of books by scholars in English about the European New Right. They mean in France, Germany, Belgium, etc. --Cberlet 22:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• "Out of the stew of the Third Position, and the European New Right theories of intellectuals such as Alain de Benoist, came a new version of White Nationalism that championed racially separate nation-states." (Berlet & Lyons, Right-Wing Populism in America). See also: Martin A. Lee, The Beast Reawakens, pp. 208–215. --Cberlet 12:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the New Right movement associated with Thatcher can go into this cat Category:New Right (Europe) as well? See King (1987) "The New Right: Politics, Markets and Citizenship." If not, the title of this category should be changed. Intangible 17:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the solution is to leave everything the way it is. There is already a disambiguation page for New Right. This is the English language Wikipedia. Nouvelle Droite is what the French movement is called. But there are other European New Right movements than the one in England. We can mention this on the category pages. Feel free to create a category for "New Right (England)"--Cberlet 12:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per Cberlet. Tazmaniacs 14:24, 21 July 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.