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, delete as empty --Kbdank71 14:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate of Category:Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs. Septentrionalis 23:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just checking: Is the UK the only country to have such a Secretary...?  Regards, David Kernow 01:20, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secretary of State suggests it is. Delete Golfcam 02:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge other category with it The article is wrong then. Some countries call junior ministers Secretaries of State, which means that their junior minister for foreign affairs is titled Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 07:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Merge unless there is another category that needs to to be disambiguated, which doesn't seem to be the case. Carina22 16:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't think we have categories for specific junior ministerial offices. Osomec 22:14, 28 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 14:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the other subcategories of Category:American Christians (apart from the category for Baptists, which is called Category:Baptists from the United States because the American Baptists are a specific subgroup of Baptists in U.S. Chicheley 22:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Cloachland 00:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 14:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. 132.241.246.111 01:55, 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 no consensus/withdrawn --Kbdank71 14:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As no consensus here, suggest rename to follow main article Halls of residence. David Kernow 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. David Kernow 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Is "halls of residence" UK/Canadian/Australian usage? As an American, I've never heard them referred to that way, only as "residence halls" (or dorms/dormitories).MakeRocketGoNow 22:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hall of residence" is the form used in British English. Chicheley 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems "halls of residence" is Commonwealth English; Category:University and college dormitories exists for American English, so perhaps this needs renaming to Category:University and college dormitories and residence halls...?  Regards, David 01:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 22:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gentgeen 23:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom There is also Category:University and college dormitories and a U.S. subcategory. Cloachland 00:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom and Cloachland. Halls of residence is standard International English. Grutness...wha? 01:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I'm in the process of splitting up the dormitory/residence halls categories by country. I created the US dormitory category today, and I intend to make a halls of residence category for the UK and possibly others if there are enough articles. When I'm finished this category will probably be empty, and can safely be deleted. - EurekaLott 03:00, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, Eureka; this sounds like the workable solution. Regards, David Kernow 13:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not acceptable. The category you are talking about has a U.S. centric name, which makes no sense at all in British English. Hawkestone 13:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above comment. Hawkestone 13:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Where I went to college (USA), we called them Residence halls. A disclaimer, I created this category. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename elsewhere, but the nominated rename is just wrong. The main article halls of residence presently redirects to dormitory. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should be changed to. Domitory and hall of residence are not two terms for the same thing.Carina22 16:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw the nomination per EurekaLott and others above. Someone with sufficient knowledge please untangle this kite-string. Perhaps the parent Category:University and college dormitories could be renamed Category:University and college student accommodation and feature a sentence or two explaining the equivalence of "dormitories", "residence halls" and "halls of residence" in this context. Then delete (or redirect) Category:Residence halls after moving everything in it into Category:University and college student accommodation. Regards, David Kernow 01:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per (original nom) as an interim measure andSupport merging all relevant non-national categories into a new parent called Category:University and college student accommodation per David Kernow. Carina22 16:23, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems a very vague category. The album The Dark Side of the Moon spent over 14 years on the Billboard Top 200. Does that mean it was "current" for those 14 years? Also, based on the description, the category requires near-constant adding/subtracting of the category from individual album articles as they enter/exit album charts. MakeRocketGoNow 22:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is unlikely to be maintained adequately and in any case it isn't part of Wikipedia's purpose to keep a track of sales of commercial items. Cloachland 00:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above. David Kernow 01:26, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Golfcam 02:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No living/dead categories for albums.--Mike Selinker 13:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A bad precedent. Sumahoy 15:35, 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 14:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This works much better as a "by country" category. Buildings are located in particular countries, and the concept of nationality is most relevant to people. Olborne 19:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)*[reply]

• Rename as above. Olborne 19:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 22:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:27, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 14:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should the sub-cats be nominated here as well, Category:French architecture to Category:Architecture in France, etc...? Kurieeto 15:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If all the examples in each category are in each respective country, then I guess so... David Kernow 01:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The subcategories follow the convention for cultural categories, so no action is required. Choalbaton 20:31, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category basically contains 4 pictures that could be a gallery in the main aricle. Move the pictures to Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and delete the category. Vegaswikian 18:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Pointless, unless it's populated with John-John, Ari and so forth. Also, it shouldn't be in all those article cats. --Dhartung | Talk 19:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless it's populated with more articles. --musicpvm 19:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's basically an image gallery, and they belong on Commons. Golfcam 02:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And while we're on the subject, Why are so many images being put in categories. I thought this was a no-no (unless they are categories of images). -- Samuel Wantman 05:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't know. Maybe a cleanup project is in order? After I saw this I noticed Category:Harrah's Entertainment so pictures in cats seems to be common. Vegaswikian 06:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Over categorisation. Choalbaton 14:23, 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 --Kbdank71 14:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Really a duplication of Roman Catholics by occupation which already had included most of the categories that were here and others like this. Also if kept this would need to be renamed to Category:Roman Catholic religious people or a similar name. Better to delete and create a better named subcat in Category:Roman Catholics if it is needed. The remaining entry could go into that new category if created or into Category:Roman Catholics. I did delete/move the subcats from here prior to this nomination. Vegaswikian 18:01, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Notable Lay Catholics nom below. --Dhartung | Talk 19:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Either under this name or as Category:Roman Catholic religious people this is likely to confuse many people, and at present it contains one only article in any case. Olborne 19:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not helpful. Cloachland 00:36, 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 --Kbdank71 14:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear and not useful. Most British books are somewhat adapted for American readers. Whether this is "translation" or not is a very interesting question that can lead to fascinating discussion, but category space is not the place to do so. I suggest replacing this with an article and annotated list.--woggly 18:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If not deleted rename to something less POV like Category:British English books with linguistically altered American English editions. (Not that I am saying that is an ideal category name.) Olborne 18:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but rename When creating the category I didn't think there would actually be people who considered 'translation' to be POV. However, I wouldn't mind a more objective title. Woggly, your claim that most British books are tranlated to American isn't true. I did a fair bit of research before creating the category and the amount of 'translated' books is actually a lot less than is widely believed. About your 'not useful' statement: judgeing by the amount of "is the American edition different from the original" questions in talk pages of book articles it's very useful - which is why I created it. MrTroy 18:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As someone who works in the publishing business, my experience has been that this phenomenon is MUCH more widespread than generally assumed. I can name half a dozen books off the top of my head that have undergone this kind of treatment, and these would only be books that I've had recent dealings with. Often it's just changing standardized spellings or a word here or there, such as "trash can" to "rubbish bin"; sometimes adding a glossary; sometimes changing the title to something more marketable; sometimes more insidious changes, like requiring authors to excise the word "evolution" from American editions (I heard about this from Elizabeth Kaye, author of "The Divide" series). The opposite also happens: American books are adjusted for the British public. I'm not trying to downplay the phenomenon. What I'm saying is that the criteria for inclusion in this category are unclearly defined, and if one were to use broad definitions, would be applicable to too many books for this to be a useful category. For no book will it be simple to make a clearcut ruling. It's not a binary "yes" or "no" sort of thing. Different books undergo slightly different forms of adaptation. I forsee much arguing about semantics. I think it would be more useful to create an article discussing this type of "translation" and discussing certain examples on a case by case basis. This would be better than branding individual books with an unclear category, without explanation. --woggly 19:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, you've got a point there. I'll add an explanation to the category page. Not to bypass this deletion discussion, but to give the category a fair chance. MrTroy 19:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't a useful category. The phenomenon could be discussed in an article with examples, but I don't see what is gained by being able to look them up (and getting citations for inclusion would be messy). --Dhartung | Talk 19:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just added an explanation to the category page. I don't see how it's 'messy'. It should be quite clear now what is meant. MrTroy 19:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and create an article about the phenomenum with a list of titles. -- Samuel Wantman 05:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why a "list of..." article would be more practical than this. I think it would only be less practical:
  • You would need to add all titles by hand
  • In every article about a translated book you would need to add a paragraph about "this book has been translated, see [list of...]" instead of just adding [category:...] to it
  • "List of..." articles are actually discouraged by the guideline, saying something to the extent of "we have categories for that"... MrTroy 08:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a trivial aspect of a book. Hawkestone 13:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per thorough explanation by woggly. Athenaeum 19:58, 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 --Kbdank71 14:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This two item category is a subcategory and near duplicate of Category:Trivia, which is itself a dubious idea. It is far too vague. The article [[curiosity] is about the pschological trait, not curiosities in the sense presumably intended here, ie as in "Museum of curiosities". Twittenham 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)))[reply]

• Delete as nom. Twittenham 16:54, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olborne 18:34, 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 rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:32, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in line with the developing standard for non-royal families. Sumahoy 16:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I don't care what you call it, my Hunyadi runs great. --Dhartung | Talk 19:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Golfcam 02:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Dhartung.--M@rēino 17:30, 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 rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "I" should be lower-cased. The convention used for islands by country is "islands of". Sumahoy 15:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Sumahoy 15:59, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename amended nom. Oppose, instead rename to Islands in the North Atlantic. "Islands of" is correct for countries, but this category is for those in an area of sea. "Islands in" is therefore the appropriate choice, as no country limits the scope of the category. For a similar category, please see Category:Islands in the English Channel. Kurieeto 16:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC). Vote changed as per ammended nomination Kurieeto 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Nomination amended. Actually I think the country categories should be "island in" as well, but I was just trying to implement what I thought was the consensus. Sumahoy 16:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the country categories should be "island in" too. You may be interested in a recent discussion held on the naming of landform by country categories at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#Landforms by country. Kurieeto 17:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per amended nomination. Nonomy 17:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as amended. --Dhartung | Talk 19:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as amended (to Category:Islands in the North Atlantic). David Kernow 13:37, 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 to Category:Films made before the MPAA Production Code. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:37, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Films created before the MPAA Production Code. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:53, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename. That is still rather cryptic so how about Category:Pre-Motion Picture Association of America Production Code films? Olborne 18:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films made before the Motion Picture Association of America Production Code. I'm not pleased with the long names, but MPAA needs to be expanded it is not well know. Vegaswikian 19:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to Category:Films before Production Code or Category:Films before MPAA Production Code Category:Films made before the MPAA Production Code. I don't have a problem with the [abbreviation] in a phrase, and there's only one discussed at Production Code. --Dhartung | Talk 19:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to Category:Films created before the MPAA Production Code, as ProveIt so eloquently put it. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films made before the MPAA Production Code or Category:Films created before the MPAA Production Code per above. David Kernow 01:33, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films made before the MPAA Production Code "created" is pretentious. Golfcam 02:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Films made before the MPAA Production Code Hawkestone 13:45, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Wikipedia:Content disclaimer; incompatible with WP:NPOV (who decides what is 'possibly offensive' and how?); WP:NOT censored. Also bad grammar in the category title! Delete. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (and is empty). David Kernow 01:34, 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by location:

• Category:Wikipedians from Switzerland to Category:Wikipedians in Switzerland
• Category:Lebanese Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians in Lebanon (Never mind. This one was just categorized incorrectly. - EurekaLott 16:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Category:User Great Britain to Category:Wikipedians in Great Britain

Merge all to the categories that follow naming conventions. - EurekaLott 15:24, 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. Roy A.A. 04:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of a systematic hoax, as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Quennells. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as hoax/patent nonsense if it applies. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's nonsense. *~Daniel~* ☎ 03:00, 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 --Kbdank71 20:17, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The European Union is not a country. I have taken this out of Category:Banks by country, but it really should be deleted. Banks operate nationally, in small clusters of countries, or globally. They do not operate throughout the EU as an entity. This classification of companies on the basis of an irrelevant entity should be nipped in the bud. Carina22 14:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Carina22 14:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Noisy | Talk 15:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, not sure I really buy the nominator's argument. It seems to me there are several articles that would be well at home in this category: EU financial institutions (e.g. European Central Bank, European Investment Bank, etc.), the central banks of European Union countries (e.g. Bank of England, Banque de France, etc.), and private sector banks defined by their operations within Europe (e.g. HSBC Bank (Europe)). --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch\^talk 15:28, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Europe and the EU are not the same thing. It is highly POV to treat "Europe" as a synonym of "European Union". Nonomy 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Category:European System of Central Banks also exists and is all that is required in this area. It also has a POV name, but it is an official name, so there is little that can be done about it. Nonomy 17:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Make into a supercat or otherwise Delete. When I originally saw this category had been created I wondered on its talk page exactly what it was for, but I thought I'd give it a chance. The only real argument in favour of this category is that of the "Single Passport" allowing a bank in one EU country to freely operate in another on the basis of home country authorisation, I would argue that one potentially useful purpose for this category would be to include only firms which are taking advantage of this provision. Effectively there are 25 regulators who can authorise banks to operate within the boundaries of the EU, however the reality on the ground is that most cross border institutions operate with subsidiaries, eg Grupo Santander and Abbey, or UniCredit and HVB, but increasingly firms are choosing to use the same legal entity to trade in more than one member state, eg Dexia and Nordea (take a look at the 9 "Banks of foo" categories which are attached to this one...) Hmm. Ian3055 23:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The effect is much greater within the EU than outside it, however whilst the effect for retail consumers remains muted this doesnt add much, and when such operation does become more widespread maintaining individual country categories will almost certainly be more effective. I'll get round to writing Banking in the European Union at some stage to cover the ground. Apologies for the extended pondering time...!! Ian3055 23:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whilst we're on the subject of non ISO countries having categories, anyone care to take a look at Category:Banks of Scotland and/or Category:Companies of Scotland? (I seem to remember an old CFD, but lets think of consistency) Ian3055 23:43, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Most major banks based in the EU which operate in several EU countries also operate outside the EU. Cloachland 00:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Technically correct, but then should be a supercat of EU members. Not very useful or maintainable as a changeable cat of banks operating in >1 EU country. International banking agreements under the WTO, G8, NAFTA, etc. erase borders but keeping track of such things is best left to articles on the individual banks. --Dhartung | Talk 02:27, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:01, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"in country" is the naming convention for cities, not nationalities. See also: Category:Images of cities in the United States. Kurieeto 14:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 16:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Athenaeum 19:58, 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 20:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To follow the formating of sub-cats of Category:Mayors by country (Ex: Category:Mayors of places in France), and to match the formating of a similarly scoped category, Category:Lists of mayors of places in Canada. Kurieeto 14:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Honbicot 15:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In British English and Hiberno-English, as one of the language's many quirks, the plural Lord Mayors is incorrect. It is Lords Mayor. Does Australia follow its own version or is the name proposed simply an error? FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 07:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Rename per nom for now. If anyone knows better about the grammatical quirk it can be brought here for a second renaming, but I really couldn't care less about such pedantic matters. Osomec 22:13, 28 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 10:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorising people by which TV shows they like is not a great idea. The List of notable Star Trek fans covers it better. See also Celebrity Whovians listed below. Tim! 09:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Hobbies are not encyclopedic. See also "Notable baseball fans" Jul-18 and "Notable ice hockey fans" Jul-15 --Brian G 12:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 13:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 22:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Shuki 18:48, 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. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match name of principal article: Scots law. "Scots law" is the correct name, and also the most common name, for the legal system of Scotland. Mais oui! 08:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Nonomy 17:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Mais oui!. Och aye. --Dhartung | Talk 19:45, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - for reasons given in nom --HJMG 19:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Grutness...wha? 01:30, 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 --Kbdank71 19:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just moved its last article to the more correct category "Anime-influenced animation" (wikifying that gives soemthing weird...). Don't see why it's needed.

• Delete as above. Olborne 18:35, 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 20:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as speedy but was contested. --Usgnus 06:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Athenaeum 13:47, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.AshleyMorton 20:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Based on wrong facts. A Students' Union capitalised, is the name of a formally registered union of students in 2nd or 3rd level. As such it is a proper noun. WP policy to capitalise proper nouns. A students' union (lowercased) is simply an informal get together of students. This category is about the formal unions, not informal sports and social clubs involving students. If it is lowercased then any organisation involving students can be linked to this category. It is only for Students' Unions. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 07:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Rename per nom. Informal student groups are classed as Category:Student societies, not unions, and the collective is lowercased throughout "students' union" and Category:Students' unions. -choster 14:25, 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 19:57, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as speedy but was contested. --Usgnus 06:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:British student unions. "British" is the adjective for the UK, as used in hundreds of other category names. Chicheley 13:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Students' unions in the United Kingdom, per naming convention for organisations. --Mais oui! 13:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Based on wrong facts. A Students' Union capitalised, is the name of a formally registered union of students in 2nd or 3rd level. As such it is a proper noun. WP policy to capitalise proper nouns. A students' union (lowercased) is simply an informal get together of students. This category is about the formal unions, not informal sports and social clubs involving students. If it is lowercased then any organisation involving students can be linked to this category. It is only for Students' Unions. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 07:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Rename per nom. Informal student groups are classed as Category:Student societies, not unions, and the collective is lowercased throughout "students' union" and Category:Students' unions. -choster 17:58, 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 no consensus --Kbdank71 20:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as speedy but was contested. --Usgnus 06:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Students' unions in Scotland, per naming convention for organisations. --Mais oui! 13:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Based on wrong facts. A Students' Union capitalised, is the name of a formally registered union of students in 2nd or 3rd level. As such it is a proper noun. WP policy to capitalise proper nouns. A students' union (lowercased) is simply an informal get together of students. This category is about the formal unions, not informal sports and social clubs involving students. If it is lowercased then any organisation involving students can be linked to this category. It is only for Students' Unions. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 07:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Rename per nom. Informal student groups are classed as Category:Student societies, not unions, and the collective is lowercased throughout "students' union" and Category:Students' unions. -choster 17:58, 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 rename as nominated --Kbdank71 20:10, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listed as speedy but was contested. --Usgnus 06:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all four. The only word that should be capitalized is the first one as these are not names of specific groups but general listings of students' unions. --musicpvm 07:17, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Students' unions in Canada, per naming convention for organisations. --Mais oui! 13:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.AshleyMorton 20:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Based on wrong facts. A Students' Union capitalised, is the name of a formally registered union of students in 2nd or 3rd level. As such it is a proper noun. WP policy to capitalise proper nouns. A students' union (lowercased) is simply an informal get together of students. This category is about the formal unions, not informal sports and social clubs involving students. If it is lowercased then any organisation involving students can be linked to this category. It is only for Students' Unions. FearÉIREANN\^{(caint) 07:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)}[reply]
• Rename per nom. Informal student groups are classed as Category:Student societies, not unions, and the collective is lowercased throughout "students' union" and Category:Students' unions. -choster 17:59, 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 rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cat should be renamed to avoid confusion and for consistency with other subcategories of Category:Record charts by country. --musicpvm 05:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Olborne 18:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 22:20, 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 keep --Kbdank71 19:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should really be two categories; Category:Current members of the United States House of Representatives from California and Category:Former members of the United States House of Representatives from California . C56C 02:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No current / former time-based categories, Wikipedia policy. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I can see why it's a good idea, but where is it a policy (or guideline)? There are certainly many categories with "current" and "former" in the name, including Category:Current members of the United States House of Representatives. California has more representatives than anyone else and so does the cat, which is now at 201 (next highest: 117), and this seems like a reasonable split approach. There's certainly a good reason to do "Current" on a national level. --Dhartung | Talk 20:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As mentioned above, please provide a source for this policy. C56C 19:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per ProveIt. Athenaeum 13:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It would be better to list the current members on a template, which would be less prone to sneaky vandalism and could also show party affliations. Carina22 16:28, 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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. (Part of the clearout of superfluous opera cats). 'Nationalist' operas - operas that advocate political nationalism (in contrast to 'national' operas with which nations identifies) are hard to identify. - Kleinzach 02:41, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. Nothing in the category anyway. C56C 02:53, 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The word "notable" seems to be a reliable indicator that a category is a bad idea. The article on which I found this category made no reference to the subject's religion. A system of categories for Roman Catholics by country is developing, so this category can first be merged into Category:Roman Catholics and then the articles can be reallocated on a national basis as appropriate. Since all non-lay Catholics will belong in a category for bishops, priests, monks nuns etc other ";Catholics" are lay by exclusion (or at least that will work when the category system is mature). Another problem with the present category is that it is intended to be for Roman Catholics but not all Catholics are Roman Catholics. Chicheley 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as nom. Chicheley 00:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom. C56C 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Notable Lay Roman Catholics or Category:Notable lay Roman Catholics, which ever is correct with the parent being Category:Roman Catholics then merge Category:Notable Lay Catholics into the new category. Category:Roman Catholics is already too large. If you want to drop notable that would be OK with me. Vegaswikian 18:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There are sufficient ways to break down Category:Roman Catholics without resorting to something as meaningless and opinionated as this. Olborne 18:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Cloachland 00:39, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a side note. I just was browsing in Category:Roman Catholics. It is a catchall cat. If anyone has the time, they might want to look at a handful and change the cat to fooian Roman Catholic. That would clean this cat up a bit. Vegaswikian 05:20, 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 merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A new user created 'Mosaic art' and added several paragraphs to this category page in one edit. And it looks like they added context to get there Institute of Mosaic Art on wp. There should never be this much text in a cat. page. The 'Mosaic' cat is well established. Clubmarx 00:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delate as nom. C56C 02:52, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 15:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I'm suggesting 'Mosaic art' should merge with 'Mosaic.' --Clubmarx 17:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge vanity cat per nom. --Dhartung | Talk 20:04, 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.