< November 5	November 7 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 21:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television stations in Columbia, SC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
rename to Category:Television stations in Columbia, South Carolina. Cyberinluuy 23:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Olborne 09:35, 7 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 21:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Exhibition architect (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
New user, notability/vanity issues, self-written? —Dogears 23:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, without any evident (valid) purpose.--cjllw | TALK 05:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Olborne 09:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all above. -- Scientizzle 07:12, 9 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete all. the wub "?!" 21:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Great Motorcycling Roads (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Great Motorcycling Roads of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Great Motorcycling Roads of New South Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Great Motorcycling Roads of Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Categories are not titled in the spirit of WP:NPOV. -- Longhair\^talk 22:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Assuming this is some kind of advocacy group's unofficial designation, it does not seem like a defining characteristic. Listify and mention in the articles. I think I feel the same way even if it's a goverment designation, something like a US rustic road or the Great River Road. --Dhartung | Talk 00:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems like a purely arbitrary category to me. Lankiveil 02:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - what defines a "great motorcycling road"? JROBBO 04:09, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And who has defined it as such? : ) - jc37 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all. What, even, defines a "motorcycling road"? It's a term AFAIK not in any formal use at all, and even listifying is problematic, as would come down to a purely personal opinion.--cjllw | TALK 05:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all As per comments above. -- Chuq 06:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify, arbitrary catting. >Radiant< 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is list material at the most. Landolitan 20:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - jc37 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete even as a motorcyclist, I would say this is at best a pub debate - and not even enecyclopedically worthy of a list! Rgds, - Trident13 19:25, 11 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was renamed. the wub "?!" 20:24, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian military operations to Category:Military operations of Canada

Category:South African Air Force squadrons to Category:Squadrons of the South African Air Force

Category:Australian brigades to Category:Brigades of Australia

Category:French brigades to Category:Brigades of France

Category:French battalions to Category:Battalions of France

Category:Rhodesian regiments to Category:Regiments of Rhodesia

• Rename [all] IAW WP Military History naming guidelines.--Oldwildbill 22:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Arbusto 06:44, 9 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ancient Indian Kingdoms to Category:Ancient Indian kingdoms

• Rename, not a proper noun. Espoo 20:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy, capit. >Radiant< 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Landolitan 20:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename - jc37 01:48, 10 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 20:25, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Characters created by Roy Thomas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete per precedents here and here. To illustrate the problems with "creator" categories, Adam Warlock was added, because he had altered the character from how it was originally created by Stan Lee & Jack Kirby. Postdlf 14:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Merchbow 18:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I vote to not delete. I created this category without knowledge of these category debates but feel that "characters created by.."-type categories are still valid. I have read nothing in the general discussion of category deletion candidates that convinces me that these sorts of categories are not essential. To me, the "Characters created by Roy Thomas" category answers the three main questions of categories:
• If the category does not already exist, is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of the category, explaining it?
• If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why the article was put in the category?
• Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?

To me, because of the persistent issues surrounding character creation in mainstream U.S. comics from the 1930s to the present, an attempt on Wikipedia's part to organize these creations by creator and to connect these characters together (something a list would not really do) would be a great service. Most if not all of the entries list creators as per the template so there should be no reason not to categorize the entries by creator/co-creator.

The situation is not quite the same with Shakespeare or Dickens since there are really no active legal issues surrounding the creation or ownership of the characters.

If the issue is the actual phrasing of the category (ie, Roy Thomas characters vs Characters created by Roy Thomas) this is easily rectified and I wish those voting against would specify. A category like DC Comics characters also implies ownership, even when ownership may be in dispute (there will never be a category called Characters created by DC comics unless perhaps DC buys a program or monkey that randomly generates characters). --Gothamgazette 08:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, these categories are a bad idea, invite ambiguity and overextend the categorisation structure. Better presented through article space, maybe at Roy Thomas for example, or listify. Hiding Talk 21:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per previous discussions, especially due to the potential for ambiguity in attributing who created a comic book character (as well-stated by Hiding, above). - jc37 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Creator credits in most comics are messy (especially as corporate ownership removes the incentive to precisely establish them) and many characters emerge from existing elements, sometimes with much dispute (just imagine the chaos in trying to put Venom into such categories). Timrollpickering 03:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and incorporate into the prose, or make a list (including co-creators) in the Roy Thomas article. --HKMarks(T/C) 03:28, 10 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Images from sports. the wub "?!" 20:38, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sports images into Category:Images from sports

• Merge, Two categories serving the same purpose. I'm not sure which is the correct name though. Stephen Turner (Talk) 12:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Previous discussions have supported the latter form. Vegaswikian 23:02, 6 November 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 section.

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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete (db-author). David Kernow (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Academics of University of Warwick (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Speedy delete, this was accidentally created. Category:Academics of the University of Warwick is now in existance. Timrollpickering 12:34, 6 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was close as duplicate nomination. --Kbdank71 12:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:British female MPs to Category:Female members of the United Kingdom Parliament or alternatively nominated for deletion.
• Category:Female members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies is nominated for deletion.
• Category:Female members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies is nominated for deletion.
• Category:Female members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Irish constituencies is nominated for deletion.

See also: Category talk:British MPs and This related CfR.- jc37 11:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added the three female subcats for deletion above. Merchbow 18:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:British female MPs and its three subcategories because there are so many of them that there is nothing remarkable about them being female. Merchbow 18:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the first (opposing the use of MP, as ambiguous), and if a consensus result of merge or delete, Merge to appropriate non-gender specific categories. - jc37 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This has already been substantially discussed. As I made clear in those discussions, there is still a valid reason for having gender based categorisation, as women MPs were only allowed relatively recently in the history of the UK Parliament, with very low numbers historically and still less than 20% of the current parliament being women. Hence this is a notable factor and worth categorising. Martín (saying/doing) 22:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So you are saying at some time they will be larger in number and at that time we can delete the category? What happens to the category when they become the majority? If this was a historical event shouldn't it be an article and not a category? Vegaswikian 23:05, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • When women a in a majority in the categorries on UK MP, we would need Praliament to be entirely female for about 180 years, because these categories are historical, i.e they include all MPs since the UK Parliament was founded. I give you my most sincere promise that when we get there, I will enthusiastically support the deletion of these female MP categories. Until then, see the guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the first for purposes of consistency. Oppose deletions of all others as yet another attempt to backdoor around the established consensus on categorizing politicians by sex. The notion that categorizing based on sex is automatically a BAD THING is kinda stupid anyway but if current consensus is that it's to be avoided except when justifiable is in place, then that guideline should be respected unless those who tag pretty much every single sex-related category nomination (including those that are offered for renaming or merging) with a delete tag to push their POV that such categories should never exist want to take the appropriate steps to re-open the discussion on the issue instead of these somewhat underhanded attempts to get around it. Otto4711 23:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all for inverted sexism. Olborne 09:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment: This nomination bypasses a pre-existing and live discussion at category talk, and neither includes the options preferred at that discussion nor includes any explanation of or direct link to their rationale. I asked for this nonination to be withdrawn by the nominator (User:Jc37) to allow a new CFD with all the options and explanations laid out, but sadly Jc37 has rejected that request, and expressed a preference for admin involvement. I have therefore posted a requst to WP:ANI for this nomination to be closed as a bad faith nomination. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I do not want to prejudge the outcome of ANI, so I now nominate the categories according to the proposals orginally made at category talk.

• Category:British female MPs to Category:UK female MPs

• Category:Female members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Northern Irish constituencies to Category:UK female MPs for Northern Irish constituencies
• Category:Female members of the United Kingdom Parliament from English constituencies to Category:UK female MPs for English constituencies
• Category:Female members of the United Kingdom Parliament from Scottish constituencies to Category:UK female MPs for Scottish constituencies

There are several reasons for this proposal:

1. the highest level category here, Category:British female MPs is ambiguous. It refers only to members of the United Kingdom parlaiment, but the name could be read as including members of other parliaments in Britain, such as the pre-1707 Parliament of England, to the current Scottish Parliament, or the 1922-1972 Stormont parliament. The new name is precise
2. The reason for using the abbreviated form "UK female MPs" is partly to develop consistency across the range of categories in which United Kingdom MPs are placed (there is unanimous support for this at category talk). It is usuual for an MP to be included in several categories realting to their time in parliament: for the nation in which their constituency is located, their party or parties, and hich parliaments they were members of. Keeping the names reasonably brief is important if the category box on each article is not to grow unreasonably huge, and keeping a consistent format for the category names make it easier for editors to remember them; shorter names are also more likely to be typed accurately. The "UK" abbreviation is widely used, and the term MP is also widely known, and should in a any case be explained in every article on an MP where the term is introduced, as "Member of Parliament (MP). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to format "UK female MPs". Oppose delete: as Martín wrote above, This has already been substantially discussed in August, and the existence of these categories is supported by Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality#Other_considerations because the gender of MPs categorisation is of special encyclopedic interest. [The Facett Society's briefing] records that women MPs numbered 23 in 1983 (3.5%), 41 in 1987 (6.3%), 60 in 1992 (9.2%), 120 in 1997 (18.2%), 118 in 2001 (17.9%), 128 in 2005 (19.8%). I therefore estimate the proportoion of those females amongst who are or have been MPs to be less than 5%, and possibly as low as 2%. That degree of gender imbalance in legislators is a subject of soecila enculclopedic interest. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Merchbow. >Radiant< 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all --BrownHairedGirl's figures show how rapidly this has become irrelevant. It is a proper subject of interest for discussion in one relevant article, not for making a point of at the bottom of hundreds of articles. Piccadilly 01:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The one category where that might have merit would be a "current female MPs" category, but there isn't one. These are historical sub-categories, covering the period since 1801: it is only wrt to current MPs that the proprtion rises to nearly 20%. As above, women amount to about 2% of all those who have been Members of Parliament since the UK Parliament was created by the Act of Union 1800. That's hardly a high proportion.
    e.g. articles in Scottish MPs: 478, Scottish Female MPs: 18 (3.8%). That's counting existing articles, which are mainly from the 20th century; as we add aricls for the 19th century MPs, the percentage will fall.
    Similar categories exist for other nations, where the historical proportions are similar: Category:Women in the United States Congress, Category:Female Teachtaí Dála (Ireland) and Category:Women Politicians - France. Categorisation guidelines say that categories such as these are "valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Merchbow and Piccadilly. Postdlf 02:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - Kittybrewster 17:36, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and Oppose deletion per Martín, we have Category:Female life peers, we have Category:Female heads of goverment and we have even Category:Women in politics, there is no reason to have not a category of female MP's. ~~ Phoe _talk 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
  • That's actually a reason to make some more deletion nominations. I will nominate the category for life peers. Nonomy 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Anachronistic. Nonomy 20:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename of Category:British female MPs to Category:Female members of the United Kingdom Parliament as it is incorrect. All female members of Parliament would have to be included, this includes the current sovereign and female members of the Lords. Either rename to Category:Female members of the United Kingdom House of Commons or do not rename. No opinion on deletions. Hiding Talk 21:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to format UK female MPs... Oppose deletion. Warofdreams talk 02:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nominated. Vegaswikian 06:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, especially the sub-categories. If we go down this road, how long before we get category:Female Labour MPs for Aldershot? Categorizing MPs by party should be sufficient on its own. Prominent MPs will have more useful specific categories for offices held and the like. Calsicol 13:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as proposed, don't delete. It has been seriously contended that women MPs behave in several ways different to male MPs. Whether or not this is true it does justify the existence of separate categories. The most recent discussion of this came as recently as this week. Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 16:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as much for being by location of constituency as by gender. British MPs often don't sit for local seats. Landolitan 20:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, you what? They all sit for local constituencies. What on earth do you mean? Fys. &#147;Ta fys aym&#148;. 22:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that may been "do not sit for constituencies where they are local", which may or may not be true, but certainly the home nation borders aren't crossed so much. Morwen - Talk 10:12, 10 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was close as duplicate nomination. --Kbdank71 12:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Current British MPs to Category:Current members of the United Kingdom Parliament
• Category:British MPs by political party to Members of the United Kingdom Parliament by political party

See also: Category talk:British MPs and This related CfR. - jc37 11:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator. Opposing the use of MP, as ambiguous. - jc37 11:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment was based on the first three categories only. Merchbow 18:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This really needs to be three separate discussions. Support renaming Category:Current British MPs. Support renaming Category:British MPs by political party. Merchbow 18:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Split the nom, as requested, and struck out split-related comments. - jc37 21:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - it's too long to type that phrase out. What's wrong with the shorter category name? JROBBO 04:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment: This nomination bypasses a pre-existing and live discussion at category talk, and neither includes the options preferred at that discussion nor includes any explanation of or direct link to their rationale. I asked for this nonination to be withdrawn by the nominator (User:Jc37) to allow a new CFD with all the options and explanations laid out, but sadly Jc37 has rejected that request, and expressed a preference for admin involvement. I have therefore posted a requst to WP:ANI for this nomination to be closed as a bad faith nomination. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However, I do not want to prejudge the outcome of ANI, so I now nominate the categories according to the proposals orginally made at category talk:

• Category:Current British MPs to Category:Current UK MPs
• oppose move of Category:British MPs by political party

There are several reasons for this:

1. Consistency: the subcategories of Category:British MPs by political party were orginally of the format Category:MPs of the 49th UK Parliament (1983-1987), but this was widely criticised at CFD in August as being far too long, and the alternative format Category:UK MPs 1983-1987 was preferred. The consensus at category talk has been to move towards this shorterformat, and to be consistent. More consistent formats for categry names are more easily remembered by editors.
2. Accuracy: The use of the term "British" MPs can be used to include members of he United Kingdom parliament since 1901, the Parliament of Great Britain (1707-1800), the Parliament of England (to 1707), the pre-1707 Scottish Parliament, the pre-1800 Irish Parliament, the 1922-72 Northern Irish Parliament at Stormont, and the current Scottish Parliaments (though members here are usually known as MSPs). "Current British MPs" is therefore confusing: "Current UK MPs" is more precise.
3. Category:British MPs by political party spans several Parlaiments: for example, currently the LibDems, Conservatives, Labour and the SNP are all represented both in the UK Parlaiment and in the SCottish Parlaiment. The Whigs were repesented in both the UK Parliament and its predecessors; so while there might be a case for subcategorising Category:British MPs by political party, renaming it would be create inaccuracies. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 14:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Too long, unmemorable, unwieldy and nothing wrong with MP as stated elsewhere. - Kittybrewster 17:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:Kittybrewster and User:JROBBO ~~ Phoe _talk 17:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC) ~~ [reply]
• Oppose, the proposed renames do not equate to the categories they are intended to replace, perhaps due to a lack of familiarity with British politics. We have a Parliament, to which The Queen, members of the upper house, the House of Lords, and the lower house, the House of Commons, all belong. However, the phrase MP only ever applies to members of the lower house, the commons. If you wish to expand the abbreviation, you must expand it to House of Commons, not Parliament. Hiding Talk 20:57, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not opposed to the suggestion about the House of Commons, if it's true. Can you provide some references? Perhaps what you are suggesting is: "...elected members..."? - jc37 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I am not suggesting elected members, since we have elected members in the House of Lords. As to the truth of what I say, at your fingertips is a research tool, might I suggest you use it? If you require further reading, try [1] and [2]. Hiding Talk 14:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the "further reading". I tend to try to avoid using Wikipedia as a primary reference, especially in XfD discussions. (For example, Parliament doesn't seem to have any references that I noticed.) However, after doing some checking, I found this site. It makes clear that "MP" is an abbreviation for "Members of Parliament". If it's what they call themselves, and it's interchangeable with "MP", then we should expand the abbreviation. However, I'd like your thoughts on this, as I may have missed something. - jc37 07:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. Warofdreams talk 02:49, 9 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 21:19, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Visegrád Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Created only this summer, subj. is a rather loose and passive association: the only content can be 4 member states plus the main stub, Template:Visegrád Group at their end does the same service without creating problems in category tree (see category's talk). Malyctenar 11:44, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Having the template should suffice. Appleseed (Talk) 05:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all Doesn't seem to be a very important characteristic. Olborne 09:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all... of what? Is there something else other than the category that is being voted on? Appleseed (Talk) 18:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (the template as well). Unsuccessful from the beginning - the countries struggled with accession to the EU and had no interest in a bloc of beggars. Currently reduced to a zombie useful only to funnel grants to NGOs (5 mil. Euro in 2007 ^[3]). There will be nothing else than the single article. Pavel Vozenilek 21:56, 11 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 10:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:True crime writers into Category:Non-fiction crime writers

• Merge, "True crime" is a sensationalist tabloid term. Merge into the more encyclopedic and accurate category:Non-fiction crime writers and keep as redirect. Merchbow 07:56, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• While true crime is a recognized term for a particular genre of writing, one that is included by, but not synonymous with, "non-fiction crime writing," the distinction is perhaps too inobvious for purposes of the category system, and "Category:True crime writing" is a redirect to Category:Crime books (of which Category:Non-fiction crime books is a subcategory). So support merge. Postdlf 15:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Pegship 01:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Olborne 09:38, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Postdlf's comments above. - jc37 01:48, 10 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 21:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Athletes from Pittsburgh to Category:Sportspeople from Pittsburgh

• Rename, for global clarity. This category is not restricted to track and field athletes, as non-Americans would assume. Merchbow 07:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I was unaware of the typical name for such a category. Is there a naming conventions page for categories? --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 08:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Start with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), big categories will often have their own comventions as well, such as Category:Films by director. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename.--Mike Selinker 04:11, 7 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Professional athletes who wrestled professionally to Category:Professional sportspeople who wrestled professionally

• Rename, in line with usual Wikipedia usage. Outside the U.S. this appears to refer to track and field athletes only. Merchbow 07:28, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, though it might well be better as a list.--Mike Selinker 04:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Athlete/sportspeople whatever aside, I think a list might be better to explain it as well. It smacks of trivia, like actors who became politicians. Postdlf 04:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/listify, trivia. >Radiant< 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. The information is more suited to a list. Vegaswikian 20:48, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "professional(ly)" would seem at first glance to be redundant here. Especially since there is a rather dramatic difference between wrestling as a sport, and the WWE : ) - jc37 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my (and others') comments above. - jc37 01:48, 10 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 10:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Australian World War II divisions to Category:Divisions of Australia in World War II
• Category:British World War II divisions to Category:Divisions of the United Kingdom in World War II
• Category:Indian World War II divisions to Category:Divisions of India in World War II

IAW the naming conventions as per discussion at WPMILHIST.--Oldwildbill 18:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename This renaming falls in line with the Divisions of Foo format that has been reached with consenseous within the WP Military History and several renaming categories have already been approved- i.e. Category:Divisions of Australia in World War I, Category:Divisions of the United Kingdom in World War I, etc.--Oldwildbill 21:23, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Object not a "Speedy criteria" rename --Philip Baird Shearer 23:42, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object Sounds like a category for either temporary administrative subdivisions or social strife. Merchbow 14:32, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity Category:Divisions of the Australian Army in World War II and similar. The US has Category:World War II divisions of the United States, which isn't exactly clear itself, but there are elsewhere most cats are of the form "Divisions of the United States Army". --Dhartung | Talk 07:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom; this is consistent with the new naming convention of Category:Divisions by country, Category:Divisions by war, etc. Kirill Lokshin 14:01, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object. As Merchbow says, it sounds like geographical or administrative divisions. Maybe "British army divisions of World War II" and the like might be better? LordAmeth 16:29, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, if you prefer to have "army" in there, it would be Category:Divisions of the British Army in World War II; but one of the main points of the new naming convention is to do away with using adjective forms for countries in these categories, so "British" doesn't really work. Kirill Lokshin 19:25, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to get rid of adjectival forms, dab "division" if people really find that necessary. I'd be OK with "divisions of <country>", "divisions of <service>", or "military divisions of <country>", myself. Alai 23:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Object, as per LordAmeth and Merchbow. That particular wording will only create even more confusion. Lankiveil 02:11, 7 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television anchors by city to Category:American television anchors by city

• Rename, This is an American category so the name should say so. In the (fairly unlikely) event that categories for non-US cities are created this can be recreated as a parent category at that point. Metthurst 05:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as an unnecessary restriction. The category may only include Americans at the moment, but there's no reason it couldn't include others, and the category isn't large enough to require further division. - EurekaLott 18:06, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Which other countries do you think might have such a category? given that is not normal internationally to have separate "anchors" in each city. In which other countries is the term "television anchor" even used? Maybe Canada, but probably nowhere else. Merchbow 18:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. How does this fit in with television presenter? Vegaswikian 23:09, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Olborne 09:40, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless someone shows another country that also does this a lot. >Radiant< 15:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, isn't that an argument for renaming? Piccadilly 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see no need to subcategorize "TV anchors by city" by country if there's only one country that uses TV anchors by city. >Radiant< 10:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The current parent is Category:American television journalists, so this and its subcategories should be renamed appropriately. These are apparently the only "television anchor" categories. Category:American broadcast news analysts is also a parent, but is underpopulated and apparently a disfavored copy of Category:American television journalists that should probably be merged there. Postdlf 17:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By this I meant to point out that Category:American television journalists by city might be a better name than "television anchor," to match the other relevant categories.
• Rename per nom. Piccadilly 01:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to prevent addition of inappropriate categories, ie. non-U.S. subcategories to a category that is itself a subcategory of U.S. subcategories. Nonomy 20:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Arbusto 06:45, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the discussion above, and noting that the category system is not a tree, and so the disambiguation would appear to be required. - jc37 01:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This area still needs some work so a few other nominations might appear. Vegaswikian 20:28, 12 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Military drugs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Well intentioned, but poorly thought out category. Every drug for every purpose may find use in military medicine. There are NO drugs that are unique to military medicine. Not stimulants. Not vaccines. Not anabolic steroids. Not even nerve agent antidote. All of these are used by nonmilitary healthcare providers. Apparently all that has to be done to put a drug in this category is cite a source stating that some military force has used it. This category is of little practical relevance, and completely unmanageable if carried out to its fullest logical extension. Give Peace A Chance 03:26, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Metthurst 05:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It's the first google result for military drugs, and the majority of the results refer to drug abuse within the military, drug control activities of the military, and bioweapons. --Dhartung | Talk 07:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Arbusto 06:46, 9 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Caciques of El Salvador (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. To judge from the circumstances of its creation, and its solitary entry, this category is intended for indigenous rulers/figures from the pre-Columbian/conquest era history of the region (now embraced by the modern country). A couple of problems with this category, however- (1) 'El Salvador' as a nation/concept did not exist in this era, so its use for this category is anachronistic. (2) 'Cacique' is a conquest-era spanish adoption of a title meaning "ruler" or "chieftain", which was in some general use at that time but actually comes from the indigenous Caribbean languages, and not those of this region (in particular, not Pipil/Nawat), and so its use is out-of-place here. Delete this category, the alternative ones now assigned to its sole entry should be sufficient.cjllw | TALK 02:50, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Nonomy 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It is as to label Julius Caesar as an Italian or Tecumseh as an American. Pavel Vozenilek 22:33, 11 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 10:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Canadian military formations into Category:Military units and formations of Canada

• Merge, old category name has been deprecated by the new naming convention. Kirill Lokshin 00:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as stated above.--Oldwildbill 21:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Landolitan 20:42, 9 November 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:State University of New York faculty, convention of Category:Faculty by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Arbusto 06:47, 9 November 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 section.