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. the wub "?!" 16:03, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

more proper naming conventional to wikipedia cat pages on Category:Roman Catholics. Mayumashu 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename my mistake - proper formal name should be used. (moved down from speedy) Mayumashu 22:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Should this not be renamed Category:Roman Catholics in Scotland according to proper Wikipedia naming policy? --Mal 05:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No, the form is correct - Nationality adjective plus "occupation" is standard. However, I require some convincing that this category should exist at all as I maintain categories by nationality should refer to legal nationality unless there is some context-specific ground why they should be divided into "English X", "Scottish X". Even then, all should be subcats of "British X" and there is no Category:British Roman Catholics. (Indeed there are only three RC cats by nationality). In any case, this is stretching the 4 specific criteria listed above as grounds for a speedy to breaking point. So Not a speedy.

• I see. So you'd suggest then perhaps, that all categories named "Foos of Northern Ireland" should in fact be renamed "Northern Irish Foos"..? --Mal 21:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for categorization of people. Generally speaking, things (e.g. rivers) get called "Things of Fooland" (e.g. Category:Rivers of Northern Ireland) whilst people are called "Fooian Fooers" (e.g. Category:Northern Ireland actors. Note that in the case of Northern Ireland the standard nationality "adjective" for Northern Ireland is "Northern Ireland" not "Northern Irish" - see Category:Northern Ireland people by occupation for further examples of subcats that take this form. There are only a couple of cats involving people that have the form "Fooers of Northern Ireland", and these do probably need fixing. Valiantis 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom --- Lancini87 23:40, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For reasons I listed above, plus the questionable basis of all cats by religion. There are only two articles in this cat currently, one of them was a bishop - who might reasonably be in a cat for Scottish Roman Catholic clergy (as the RC Church hierarchy is separately organised in Scotland, this seems a justifiable ground for a separate Scottish group) - and the other's article makes no mention of his religious denomination at all, therefore it is not encyclopedic. People who are clergy or who are notable for their religious belief or practice might reasonably go in an appropriately named category, people who happen to be Catholic (or Muslim, or Jain, or whatever) incidentally to the reason why they are notable should not be categorised by religion, hence there is no need for any Roman Catholics by nationality subcats. Valiantis 01:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment nomination of Category:Roman Catholics for deletion will result in a keep, so despite a lack of "encyclopedicness" (i agree) so unless we want an extremely long list of all Roman Catholics we need either to sub-cat Roman Catholics by either occupation or nationality. i personally would prefer by occupation simply because the lists for Irish and Italian Catholics to name but two will be immense. but a number of users have suggested listing by nationality is a better route because of the near trivial encyclopedic value in the connection between religious belief one's occupation. Mayumashu 07:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If we are going to subdivide by nationality - I agree this is preferable to subdividing by occupation - then the appropriate nationality is "British". Valiantis 15:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Mais oui! 07:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename more conventional and more neutral (most Christian denominations regard themselves as 'Catholic' and resent the appropriation of the label to one group) --Doc ^ask? 09:37, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cactus.man ✍ 18:04, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. - TexasAndroid 16:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Category name fix following mass move of Cthulhu Mythos-related articles. Relevant categories include:

• Category:Cthulhu mythos to Category:Cthulhu Mythos
• Category:Cthulhu mythos deities to Category:Cthulhu Mythos deities
• Category:Cthulhu mythos locations to Category:Cthulhu Mythos locations
• Category:Cthulhu mythos species to Category:Cthulhu Mythos species
• Category:Fictional books within the Cthulhu mythos to Category:Fictional books within the Cthulhu Mythos

-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:55, 31 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 16:30, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Arniep 23:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• For people interested in finding (be)spectacled cartoon characters, I suppose. Category has a population. Perhaps listify?  If kept, please rename to Category:Cartoon characters wearing spectacles. Regards, David Kernow 00:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless trivia. Postdlf 00:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe not... Cartoons make heavy use of stereotyping; characters wearing glasses can be an example, so it might be a useful resource. I don't mind if the category is deleted, but I also don't think it's an obvious non-starter... is this a listify case?  Regards, David Kernow 01:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify? If you like; I personally wouldn't bother, but creating a list is always an option, and one that doesn't require anyone's approval here to do. Postdlf 03:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough – and no, it's not something I'm interested in doing. Just thinking out loud. Thanks for your input, David Kernow 04:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We don't categorise real people by their wearing of glasses. I see no reason to do so for fictional characters. Also cat is currently an orphan. Valiantis 01:56, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Valiantis Piccadilly 07:01, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Valiantis Jll 11:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's a name for glasses-wearing cartoon women, Meganekko, perhaps that's why the category was created. Interesting that most of the entries in the category are men. 72.230.60.89 23:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a Japanese term. Bhoeble 15:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep under the suggested rename 'Cartoon characters wearing spectacles'. It may appear a trivial category, but it's an interesting sociological observation: real people wear spectacles for their eyesight, but cartoon characters wear spectacles because of a deliberate decision by an artist. I'd be interested in a larger category also for Literary characters wearing spectacles and for Movie heroes wearing spectacles. Myopic Bookworm 13:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just because you can create a category it doesn't mean you should. If there is anything worthwhile to say on this subject, which I doubt, a category doesn't say it. Bhoeble 15:15, 3 April 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 15:19, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename The articles listed in the sub-categories are of both ethnic and national origins. --- Lancini87 23:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. also the near empty Category:Mexican people by ethnic origin should be merged into the new cat page Mayumashu 07:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Rockero 00:42, 8 April 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 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC) (Strict tally of 4 delete, 2 keep)[reply]

This category was deleted via CfD on 26 August 2005. It was subsequently twice recreated and speedily deleted on each occasion for being a recreation of previously validly deleted content. Following the last speedy deletion, an appeal was made at Wikipedia:Deletion review to undelete the cat. A sufficient number (>50%) of participants felt the category should undeleted; I'm relisting it here to enable a proper decision as to the suitability of categorizing encyclopedia articles in this way. No vote. —Encephalon 22:11, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete arbitrary intersection of two unrelated traits. If the people by religion categories really need to be subcategorized (though I haven't seen a good argument as to why), then divide by nationality (e.g., "British Roman Catholics", "Italian Roman Catholics"), as the manner in which a religion is practiced actually does differ from country to country. Dividing by occupation doesn't document any similarly meaningful relationship, nor does it track or reflect any extant academic studies. See also recent CFD precedents for Category:Roman Catholic businesspeople and Roman Catholic painters. Postdlf 22:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A cat along the lines of "Actors who are notable for their Roman Catholicism" might just be tolerable (if frankly unnecessary), but that is not this cat. Valiantis 01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Valiantis. JoshuaZ 04:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems fine to me, although a list would be better. -- JJay 04:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Cat is in need of extra people, but thats not a good reason to delete it! --Irishpunktom\^talk 11:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody suggested this had anything to do with the category being underpopulated; I think you accidentally voted in the wrong discussion. Postdlf 14:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Postdlf. --Kbdank71 18:04, 6 April 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 as typo. the wub "?!" 15:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a spelling mistake when I set up the category. It should have been Category:Pollution by country. Alan Liefting 21:26, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV name. Use Category:Environment by country instead. Sumahoy 21:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not consider it to be POV. I had made a spelling mistake. Alan Liefting 08:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sorting out all the articles that come under Category:Environment. That is why is set up Category:Pollution by country. Category:Environment by country is the higher level cat which can include Category:Pollution by country. Alan Liefting 08:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Pollution by country which is what I believe the proposer means. I do not consider the word pollution to be POV and there is already a Category:Pollution. (In effect, the merge will be a deletion as this cat is already empty, but I do not want my vote to be misunderstood as a vote to delete the correctly spelt cat). Valiantis 01:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No merging is required. As soon as I realised I had made a spelling mistake I reallocated the articles to to the correctly worded category. Alan Liefting 08:43, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. I don't think pollution is POV. Jll 11:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and agree that pollution is a fine word with out POV issues attached. JoshuaZ 04:58, 2 April 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 merge into Category:Sport in the United Kingdom. the wub "?!" 15:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. Merge into Category:Sport in the United Kingdom Athenaeum 21:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge as per nom Mayumashu 22:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Valiantis 01:45, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. Jll 11:14, 1 April 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. the wub "?!" 15:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match Category:American radio, most similar categories and normal usage. Sumahoy 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Standard usage for cultural categories. Valiantis 01:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is radio one area of Wikipedia where America = United States (of America)...?  I was under the impression there was a distinction (desired)... Unsure, David Kernow 15:48, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is only a distinction in certain non-English speaking countries and among people making an annoying politically correct point. In English America = the United States; the Americas = the two continents of North and South America. Bhoeble 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My first language is English and I'm from an English-speaking country. There "America" means the US in some contexts but in others it means north and south America. A category has no context. Perhaps this remark of mine will be termed "annoying(ly) politically correct" -- but although I have heard this term "politically correct" bandied around quite a bit, it seldom if ever advances the discussion. Hoary 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 15:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is to continue to mean "United States radio programs", then either leave as is or rename to "US radio programs". -- Hoary 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I withdraw the objection immediately above, in view of the million previous hashes-out (see below). -- Hoary 06:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The question of whether to use American in US-specific category names has been hashed out a million times already, and the debate has clearly come down in favour. I don't see any valuable reason to reopen it yet again. "American" as a standalone demonym virtually always means "pertaining to the United States" in English; to mean anything else it has to have a geographic disambiguator such as "North" or "South" or "Central" in front of it. Also, as one of the Wikipedians most heavily involved in radio-related edits, I find it infuriating to constantly have to doublecheck which US radio categories use "American" and which use "United States" — having applied this very category to more than a few articles, I never get it right on the first try if I don't look first, and I really have better things to do than double check this every single time I'm doing cleanup on Category:Radio programs. Rename per nom. Bearcat 03:21, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unfamiliar with these earlier hashes-out. So, "American" is only slightly ambiguous. But, while it's laborious, "United States" isn't ambiguous at all. "US" is entirely unambiguous, and shortest of all. I suggest "US" here, and elsewhere too. -- Hoary 06:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. The debate is going to be entirely unresolvable if we reopen it every single time a US-related category comes up for renaming. I have no objection to US, nor to American...I just think that at some point we have to actually settle on a decision and stick with it for good. Bearcat 05:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, fair enough. WP appears to have made a decision. In my ignorable opinion, it was the wrong decision; but I suppose WP must follow that decision (at least until it's reversed, which doesn't seem likely). -- Hoary 06:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom and Bearcat CalJW 03:46, 9 April 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 15:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still haven't got round to doing a bulk nomination for these, but prompted by the German issue below, here is the transport category for the largest Commonwealth country which has not yet had its category converted into Commonwealth English. Rename CalJW 20:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Sumahoy 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Valiantis 01:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 15:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the name is consistent with other transportation categories using a perfectly valid and correctly spelled word. There's no reason to take the time and effort imposing British English on Wikipedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename It isn't consistent with the dozens which already use "transport". Hawkestone 04:44, 4 April 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 16:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic fancruft. Serves no real significance in the Pokémon world. Andros 1337 20:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Alan Liefting 21:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Good grief. Delete, please. —Encephalon 22:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Seems like an interesting way of classifying them. Maybe it should be a list? JoshuaZ 04:59, 2 April 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 15:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains one article, and unlikely to grow. Unnecessary. SeventyThree^(Talk) 19:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Woolly category - an attempt to populate it will likely create POV issues. Sumahoy 21:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per above. Alan Liefting 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Sumahoy; category too vague as presently named. David Kernow 00:17, 1 April 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 15:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Imprecise at best, POV all around. choster 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; I can't fathom a valid use or justification for this. Postdlf 18:05, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Historically, I have heard of the ancient Roman Senate granting the title "Friend of Rome", but I doubt the U.S. Congress has created an opposite counterpart. — Eoghanacht ^talk 19:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Piccadilly 20:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:People denounced as enemies by the Bush regime might be more accurate as they decline to offer evidence that these people actually did anything against the United States. CalJW 20:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 21:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 15:49, 1 April 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 to Category:Transport in Berlin. - TexasAndroid 15:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently ill-formed. When I nominated it for a speedy to "Category:Transportion in Berlin", Valiantis pointed out:

We have Category:Transportation in Germany but as subcats are found Category:Transport in Hamburg, Category:Transport in Munich, Category:Tram transport in Germany & Category:Rail transport in Germany. The main article for Germany is called Transport in Germany. Is there a guideline as to whether the BE or the AE form should be used? Clearly not a speedy as this is a long-time contentious issue, and this proposal seems to be stretching the criteria for a speedy as listed above in any case. Valiantis 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which motivated both this nom and the one below. While I am not sure how to proceed with this, we really ought to get rid of this ill-formed name, however we decide to handle the American/Commonwealth English issue on the -ation. I therefore support rename into whatever the outcome is for Category:Transportation in Germany. TheGrappler 16:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Transport in Berlin as per comments on Germany below and to match nearly all the non North American city categories. CalJW 20:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Transport in Berlin. Germany is closer to the UK than to the United States. Athenaeum 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Transport in Berlin. In the absence of a definite guideline, I'd point out that the BE form is used by the Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe who run local transport in Berlin throughout the English language pages of their website. [1]. Valiantis 01:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Transport in Berlin for above reasons. Piccadilly 07:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Transport in Berlin, as above. David Kernow 15:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Transportation in Berlin to be consistent with other transportation categories. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:44, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Transport in Berlin to be consistent with the dozens which already use "transport". Hawkestone 04:44, 4 April 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 15:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather marginal American/Commonwealth English choice. This was brought to my attention as an issue however when I nominated Category:Berlin transportation for a speedy and Valiantis pointed out:

We have Category:Transportation in Germany but as subcats are found Category:Transport in Hamburg, Category:Transport in Munich, Category:Tram transport in Germany & Category:Rail transport in Germany. The main article for Germany is called Transport in Germany. Is there a guideline as to whether the BE or the AE form should be used? Clearly not a speedy as this is a long-time contentious issue, and this proposal seems to be stretching the criteria for a speedy as listed above in any case. Valiantis 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure how to resolve this issue but clearly it is inconsistent (and arguably unsustainable) for the current state to continue. I (weakly) suggest making the category follow the form of the main article and the majority of its subcategories. TheGrappler 16:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep to match with its parents, Category:Transportation by country and Category:Transportation in Europe. SeventyThree^(Talk) 19:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Transport in Germany. The name of the parent is no more relevant than for Category:Transport in the United Kingdom. The reason why most of these were created as "Transportation" is that the transport(ation) by country articles were bot generated from CIA World Factbook data and the categories were then made to match. I've had a good number of them renamed (about 45% of the national categories are "transport" now) and I intend to continue the process. Commonwealth English is prevalent in Germany and Europe as a whole. The government of Germany has a Ministry of Transport not a Ministry of Transportation and the EU also uses "Transport". CalJW 20:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Transport in Germany as per CalJW. Athenaeum 21:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom Mayumashu 22:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom; and rename Category:Transportation by country to Category:Transport by country and Category:Transportation in Europe to Category:Transport in Europe. David Kernow 00:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom & CalJW. The form "transport" also has the advantage of being shorter. Valiantis 01:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; the name is consistent with other transportation categories using a perfectly valid and correctly spelled word. There's no reason to take the time and effort imposing British English on Wikipedia. Angr (talk • contribs) 21:45, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It may be correctly "spelled", but it's not correctly "spelt". :-) Seriously, we should use the appropriate flavour of English, as per (very) long-standing policy; this is no different. James F. (talk) 14:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Hawkestone 04:46, 4 April 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 subcats, Keep parent. - TexasAndroid 15:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: These categories had one or two article each, and they have no potential for growth. They only add clutter. Appleseed (Talk) 16:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain on the subcategories but Keep Category:Years in Poland; over 20 other countries have a corresponding category, it is the place to categorise articles of the "1970 in Fooland" variety. Most, however, do not have separate categories for each year, but I don't see that they are inherently unable to grow. The US and UK both have subcats for individual years and some of these subcats contain a dozen articles each and I can see room to expand them further; I presume that Poland has as many events as other large countries. Valiantis 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Years in Poland. Delete subcategories (i.e. Category:1981 in Poland). I was under the impression that Years in Fooland was only for 1934 in Fooland and so on, hence the subcats will only ever contain one article. Articles on events should go into Category:History of Poland and it's subcategories. SeventyThree^(Talk) 19:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Years in Poland. Delete any subcategories which are empty at the end of the debate, but in principle they are legitimate. CalJW 20:43, 31 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. the wub "?!" 15:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bestselling what, over what time period, and according to whom? choster 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Valiantis 16:23, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Vossanova 19:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Vague and prone to misuse. CalJW 20:44, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- vague. - Longhair 21:29, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for some really good reason. Postdlf 21:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Normally used for books but contains a musician. Alan Liefting 21:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as vague, per nom. David Kernow 00:21, 1 April 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 to Category:Television sketch shows. the wub "?!" 15:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All contents within the category are related to television sketch comedy shows. Suggesting a rename to better describe the category content. -- Longhair 11:06, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I prefer the form of the British category: category:British television sketch shows to either of these options. "Sketch comedy television" sounds awkward to me. Athenaeum 21:27, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Television sketch shows as per Athenaeum, unless people know of sketch shows not intended to be comic (in which case, suggest something like Category:Comedy sketch shows on television). David Kernow 00:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Television sketch shows as per Athenaeum's (implied) suggestion. Valiantis 01:49, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Television sketch shows Piccadilly 07:03, 1 April 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 up merge. - TexasAndroid 16:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category whose meaning comes perilously close to, or actually is, "Photographers whose work rises to the status of art", or even more simply "Really good photographers" — and thus one that's doomed to be a PoV battlefield if it's used at all. Please see the category's talk page for an amicable discussion from 13–17 March, which establishes that "Art photographer" does not mean somebody who conscientiously or professionally takes photographs of what are recognized to be works of art (so the term is not analogous to "landscape photographer"), but does not clear up much beside this. Even if we can somehow avoid PoV, "Art photographer" conflates (a) photographers who consciously aspire to art (whether or not they do so as part of what is referred to, occasionally with a touch of sarcasm, as "Art photography"), and (b) photographers who, whatever they were or are intending to do, have achieved what is called art. And as for (b), my response to the bright line of museum shows is workable and has been used for years to define which painters or other craftsmen work merit being called art remains the same as it was in the talk page: unless we insist on one-man shows or (semi-) permanent display, that definition would cover a very large percentage of the photographers who get, or are likely to get, articles in WP. Hoary 08:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the main photographers category for reasons stated by Hoary Athenaeum 14:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Hoary. Postdlf 14:32, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with category:photographers. Hoary's explanation puts it perfectly. Pinkville 16:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as above. CalJW 20:46, 31 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 merge. - TexasAndroid 16:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge people who have been listed on the 'Cork people' page are both from the city and county of Cork and the city is part of the county. Mayumashu 07:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, though the target should probably be renamed to "People from County Cork." Postdlf 20:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

actually, i agree but the whole set of like British and Irish category pages would need to be renamed and i suspect (from what i ve seen of voting on people cat pages) British and Irish users would vote to keep as is. it s the case, isn t it, that "people from" allows for including long-term residents who were not born in the place in question where "natives of" allows for inclusion of people who were merely born there and neither were affected by nor affect the place Mayumashu 22:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed; a distinction between "Natives of" and "People from" might be assumed. Make all "People from X" subsume "Natives of X" categories and sort accordingly?  Regards, David Kernow 00:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see much point in categorizing people by where they were born but had no other connection (I myself was born in a city that I have never lived in); that's merely trivia. If people are to be categorized by locality, it should be on the basis of having a substantial connection to a place, because of long-term residence and/or having become notable because of their activities there. Postdlf 00:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i mostly agree. for me it where one grows up or resides long-term in adult age, but not where one was born. i think the best naming structure would be 'people of fooian', as is used with the Australian cat names - it s vague enough to allow both natives and non-natives. and also i wonder if most British users consider nativesness to mean merely being born in the locale, or having grown up there but not necessarily been born there? determining contribution to a locale is POV, perhaps too POV; basing the categorizing on long-term residence (either when young or older) is less POV. non long-term residents with contribution to the locale could be put in the locale's supra-cat, (ie. Category:Lincoln, Nebraska but not Category:People from Lincoln, Nebraska Mayumashu 10:50, 3 April 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. (No Consensous on split) - TexasAndroid 16:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to 'villains' (spelling). Charles Matthews 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Spelling corrections are Speedy renames, but perhaps the category should be split. CalJW 20:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Split with rename into Category:Pulp heroes and Category:Pulp villains. David Kernow 15:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, don't split I'm unconvinced that there are enough pulp heroes and villains to justify two separate categories. JoshuaZ 04:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If no split, I agree that rename needed. David Kernow 02:07, 6 April 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. the wub "?!" 14:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC) virtually identical to Category:Regiments of the United States Army, which is a subcategory of this category, kind of a circular reference. Not really a merge candidate; just adds an unnecessary layer Nobunaga24 06:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Postdlf 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Is it possible to redirect categories? If not then delete this. Athenaeum 21:21, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alan Liefting 21:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect; so far as I'm aware, the U.S. doesn't have any regiments, but the U.S. Army does. David Kernow 00:29, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Jll 11:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. the wub "?!" 14:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category was renamed, but for some reason this was left. It's an empty category, probably speedy, but I didn't know how to list for speedy deletion Nobunaga24 05:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nominator. jareha ^(comments) 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. Vegaswikian 20:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete -- Longhair 21:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Jll 11:17, 1 April 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 15:13, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match project name — WikiProject University of Texas at Austin — and per similar categories at Category:WikiProjects. jareha ^(comments) 01:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Johntex\^talk 15:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; this would then appear to follow other members of Category:WikiProjects. David Kernow 15:53, 1 April 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.