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

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 04:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been created as a home for people of other nationalities than the Americans in Category:Color commentators and the Canadians in Category:Colour commentators (both are up for renaming so the links may go red). But it actually only contains three British people. I don't think it is necessary to try to export the distinction to countries where it isn't used. It is simpler to keep the British people in Category:British sports broadcasters as the terminology used in the UK is rather varied and inconsistent broadcaster collects all the relevant people in one place. The same would apply to other countries. Merge Osomec 22:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment Pundit is definitely a clearly distinct role in UK broadcasting; there is a definite difference between a pundit and a general sports broadcaster (albeit pundits are a subset of broadcasters). Pundits are normally ex-sportspersons and bring an in-depth knowledge to a particular sport; broadcasters may be ex-sportspersons but they are not necessarily so and may often present a variety of sports; they also do not necessarily play the role of expert that the pundit plays. Someone's punditry is often only a minor aspect of their overall notability (e.g. Ron Atkinson is more notable as a football manager than as a TV pundit) whereas most broadcasters are notable primarily as broadcasters. I agree that this cat is not necessary as all pundits are broadcasters (hence I am not opposing the merge), but it seems to me it could be a valuable subcat if renamed "British television sports pundits" and made a subcat of Category:British sports broadcasters and I would support this if others agree there is a useful distinction to be made. Valiantis 15:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed. It will be much more useful to divide British sports broadcasters by sport than by type, and this has been started with the football category. Doing both would surely be over the top. Hawkestone 20:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:British television sports pundits, as suggested by User:Valiantis. i created this cat page as a British companion the one for colo(u)r commentators and agree with what User:Valiantis says here above. many analysts do not give play by play and this distinction is a useful to make. i also support that there ultimately should be sub-catting by sport where possible, although many north american announcers cover various sports (whereas pundits obviously stick to their's) Mayumashu 02:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed. Bhoeble 07:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 04:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All of the people in "celebrity duos" could just as easily be in just "Duos", since in order to be included in Wikipedia at all, you have to be notable (or basically have some level of celebrity). Most of the items in "celebrity duos" are redundant with other "duos" subcats, such as "Sibling duos" (ie - Evan and Jaron and the Olsen twins). If there is any theme to "celebrity duos" at all, several are comedy duos, but there are many musical, writing, and other type of duos there as well. Yin and Yang (the easter symbol) are even in there. The term "celebrity" clarifies nothing, and everything in there really belongs in simply "duos" or in one of the "duos" subcat.Esprit15d 21:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Unfortunately, we have Category:Celebrities. As long as that stands, so can this. Postdlf 21:45, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is a separate issue. I have no problem with the "Celebrity" category, since there are many things in WP that aren't celebrities, so that actually narrows down something. It's just that here, we have two cateogories ("Duos" and "celebrity duos") serving the exact same function, listing duos or all kinds, and one is more accurately named than the other. To illustrate, yin and yang (the eastern symbol) is in celebrity duos. Bascially, "celebrity duos" is a clearing house of redudancy for items that either already are or should be in other more specific categories or simply in "duos."--Esprit15d 22:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Precedent says that lists or categories combining two otherwise unrelated characteristics aren't encyclopedic, but just trivia which WP:NOT. Barno 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely, but I don't think that applies here, because the included articles are on people who are celebrities as duos. It isn't like it's Category:Roman Catholic duos or Category:Duos, at least one of whom loves cats. Postdlf 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. - TexasAndroid 20:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these really aren't bands, but even the bands would fit under the umbrella of musical groups. Many categories follow the "musical group" naming system, since it is the broadest term. Esprit15d 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• rename as proposed. Hawkestone 20:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Family music groups. David Kernow 16:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. - TexasAndroid 20:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The old name doesn't convey that the list is in the televions category heirarchy and is only intended for episodes of televison series. JeffW 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support any rename that includes "television series" in the title. Postdlf 21:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Can "Episode lists" include anything other than television series and movie serials? If not, it seems like the previous title is fine. But I'm not opposed to the change.--Mike Selinker 15:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority are lists of tv series episodes. I went through them all and there were one or two each of lists of machinima episodes, flash cartoon episodes, radio episodes or webisodes which I moved to the correct category and for some of them created a category. --JeffW 18:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sure, of course. I didn't think of radio or the web. Well, either we accept this category as being more inclusive or make the change you suggest, and I'm fine with the latter. So support.--Mike Selinker 06:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 16:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Discordance 18:47, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Category:Lists of TV series episodes as convention by WP:TV-NAME only general television subjects have television in the name. Episodic television carries TV series. Remember to visit and help WP:TV and Portal:Television if you are interested in TV on wikipedia - The DJ 23:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course following Category:Television_series you could argue that it should be Category:Lists of episodes by television series. - The DJ 23:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or Category:Episode lists by television series. --JeffW 00:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 16:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A village with its own category = overcategorisation. Many cities don't have their own category. --Mais oui! 17:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 18:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Unless it's London or NYC, this is overcatergorizing.--Esprit15d 21:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. David Kernow 16:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Brings it into compliance with other such categories which are subcats of Category:United States federal legislation. Expands from "tariffs" to "trade", which also would include embargoes. —Markles 17:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Keep. - TexasAndroid 20:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category is empty, and IMHO invalid as a category. A relevant article Irish Guards already exists. Yendor1958 16:01, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw nomination. Having looked at the example suggested by SoLando I withdraw this nomination. Although by the time They have finished amalgamating and renaming, there could be some very complicated nested categories. Should the pages in Category:The King's Regiment also go in in a new category for Duke of Lancaster's Regiment (King's Lancashire and Border) for example? --Yendor1958 12:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and populate - with Irish Guards and Victoria Cross winners for instance. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'll go ahead and do that. Category:The King's Regiment is a good example that this type of category is viable. SoLando (Talk) 11:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename. - TexasAndroid 20:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposed rename per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_4#Category:Primitives Syrthiss 13:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. It's clunky (perhaps like the Transformers themselves) but if that's the current format... Suggest "X (Transformers universe)" as more encyclopaedic. David Kernow 16:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the proposal below. West Greece is a periphery (region), and Wikipedia naming policy is Natives of (region). So Rename.

• Comment I don't think there is a fixed policy at all, so people should feel free to vote how they wish. Bhoeble 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My mistake, there is no fixed policy but people should bear in mind that the pattern "natives of" exists elsewhere, such as Category:French_people_by_place and Category:Irish_people_by_county.

Furthermore, the real meaning of terms such as "West Greeks" is not immediately apparent to English speakers with no knowledge of Greek administrative boundaries.--Damac 08:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the proposal below. Thessaly is a periphery (region), and the pattern Natives of (region) is used elsewhere. In addition, Thessalikis is a Greek word and has no hits in English-language Google. So Rename.--Damac 08:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the proposal below. Peloponnese is a periphery (region), and the pattern Natives of (region) is used elsewhere. In addition, Peloponessos is a Greek word and a dated term for the region more commonly known as Peloponnese. It is not used in English to describe people. So Rename.--Damac 08:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the proposal below. Epirus is a periphery (region), and Wikipedia naming policy is Natives of (region). So Rename.

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the proposal below. Crete is a periphery (region), and Wikipedia naming policy is Natives of (region). So Rename.

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the proposal below. Central Greece is a periphery (region), and Wikipedia naming policy is Natives of (region). So Rename.Damac 10:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, there is no fixed policy but people should bear in mind that the pattern "natives of" exists elsewhere, such as Category:French_people_by_place and Category:Irish_people_by_county.

Furthermore, the real meaning of terms such as "Central Greeks" is not immediately apparent to English speakers with no knowledge of Greek administrative boundaries.--Damac 08:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In line with the Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people policy. There is no need for a capital P in people, the word Greek to be repeated twice, nor for periphery (the administrative units in Greece) to be in the plural. So Rename. Damac 10:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 07:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. David Kernow 16:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 20:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and redundant with the corresponding "Unincorporated communities in..." categories, as "village" is not an official designation in either state. For those unfamiliar with this topic and categorization scheme, a "village" is a particular class of municipalities in many states, and so its use as a generic term for "unincorporated community" is disfavored as ambiguous and unnecessary. Postdlf 05:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 17:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. - TexasAndroid 20:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete useless, arbitrary category, apparently meant for any place that could be used for recreation. Which is really any place that has hiking, fishing, skiing, biking, rock climbing...in other words, any named place that will have an article. No parent structure, no analogs in other state categories, and no purpose served by this because all entries are already in appropriate Arizona subcategories. Postdlf 04:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Bhoeble 18:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I ask here to make assesment of this category. It contains father Fred and son Donald, sucessful entrepreneurs plus less notable wives and children of the Donald Trump. If someone thinks this is valid category, please remove this item from CfD to reduce the noise. Pavel Vozenilek 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, though I think we should rename this and all other such categories to "[X] family." Most, but not all follow that standard, which more explicitly reserves the category for related individuals, rather than just anyone with the same last name. Postdlf 19:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Postdlf.--Esprit15d 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Trump family per Postdlf. Barno 23:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Trump family per Postdlf. Bhoeble 07:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Category:Trump family as per above. David Kernow 16:12, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I just added Maryanne Trump Barry - rename to Category:Trump family. BD2412 T 17:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has been sitting in the "undecided" pile for ages on Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), and so I'm trying to get a bit of movement on the last outliers. (1) All the subcats are formatted in the "nationality xx" format (2) it contains nationalities not neccessarily linked to countries (ie Category:Roma culture, Category:Sahrawi culture) and (3) Socio-cultural topics are explicitly listed on naming conventions as to be maintained as "by nationality" groups. That equals rename, I hope. The Tom 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you be more explict or point to the earlier discussion? Bejnar 03:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what you mean by earlier discussion, since he didn't mention any, but see e.g. this. General trend is toward using nationality for social and cultural topics, and by country for political or physical topics. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Country is much better identifiable. The few exceptions may be listed in separarate category or simply stay - no perfect solution exists. Pavel Vozenilek 03:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly do you mean by "much better identifiable?" The category at present contains a selection of nationalities—not countries—surely continuing to refer to this as a "by country" category is an obstacle to clarity? The Tom 04:08, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Mais oui! 07:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Valiantis 15:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 16:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Postdlf 16:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Remame, great idea. - Jmabel | Talk 18:37, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. - TexasAndroid 20:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The year and the season coincide in the U.S., but they do not on the European Tour, the Asian Tour, the Sunshine Tour, the PGA of Australasia Tour or the ALPG Tour. However the articles are for calendar years as this is the simplest arrangement. Rename Osomec 00:14, 14 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 18:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename. Sure. I created this, and I'm happy to have this changed.--Mike Selinker 09:36, 17 March 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.