< September 20	September 22 >

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Welsh national football team managers to Category:Wales national football team managers

• Rename, in line with the article Wales national football team, and other categories such as Category:England national football team managers. Chanheigeorge 22:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 08:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:39, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Law enforcement officials in Pakistan to Category:Pakistani police officers

• Rename. To bring in line with Category:Pakistani people by occupation and Category:Police officers by nationality. -- Necrothesp 18:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine was not tagged for a reverse merge, so relisting for another week. Original discussion here. --Kbdank71 18:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine. I don't care which is used as the final title, but I really don't see a useful difference between the two topics. -- Beland 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If no difference, reverse merge as Category:Theology more succinct...?  David Kernow 03:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If either one is acceptable, I think that I would prefer a reverse merge into Category:Theology. I think it's a more widely used term, and like David Kernow said, it's more succinct. —Cswrye 05:14, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge into category:Theology. Theology is a standard subject area and it is no more necessary to expand the term in this way than it would to rename category:history to Category:Things that happened in the past. Brammen 11:48, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge to Category:Theology per David Kernow. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There is a difference between religious philosophy and theology. IN looking at the categories, one is very clearly philosophy (read its introduction). category:Theology would seem to be a mix of Jewish, Christian, and Islamic theological topics for discussion. I think maybe we should leave this one alone. - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge. Rename if someone can come up with an appropriate name. - jc37 00:28, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both categories are fine where they are. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:29, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (in response to previous comments). Please consider how someone would decide whether something like "Life after death" should be in Theology, Religious philosophy and doctrine, or both. There are a large number of subcategories which contain material applicable to both, and so if they were properly sorted, there would be quite a large overlap. -- Beland 21:21, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse Merge per David Kernow. I was under the impression that religious philosophy and doctrine was theology, and that any other religious philosophy fell under Category:Philosophy of religion or Category:Metaphysics - Sam 18:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Religious philosophy is different than Theology. (In the university system, they fall under different headings, Philosophy and Theology.) The explicit difference here is the "theo-" in theology. The theology category is about topics for discussions about the monotheistic abrahamic religions, such as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. The religious philosophy discusses the concepts of religion, philosophical thoughts about existence from a religious standpoint, as well as topics outside the monotheistic discussions. There is going to be an overlap, obviously, but that's embraced, rather than frowned upon in the category system. While I don't think a rename for either categories is necessarily in order, I do think that the Theology category's introduction should more clearly explain this, to clarify for those not familiar with the topics of study. (For further info, check out the Theology article.) - jc37 14:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge There is no article on Religious philosophy - it redirects to Philosophy of religion. There is, however, a cat for category:philosophy of religion. The argument for Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine as a distinct discipline is pretty thin. Banno 19:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I presume that you (Banno) are saying: Merge Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine to category:philosophy of religion? If so, I agree. - jc37 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine to category:Philosophy of religion. - jc37 19:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Religious philosophy and doctrine to category:Philosophy of religion - Also, I suggest clarifying the category introductions for Category:Theology and Category:Philosophy of religion to help lay users like me better understand the difference between the two so we know which category to use when sorting religious articles. Dugwiki 15:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Current Stampede Wrestling roster (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Comment. This could be either renamed to Category:Stampede Wrestling roster or just simply deleted. But there is no Stampede Wrestling roster (article) that I know of, so that would need to be made as well. But the current in the category needs to go, no other roster categories are listed like that. RobJ1981 18:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Stampede Wrestling roster to match form in Category:Professional wrestling rosters. Vegaswikian 03:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete With a roster this small, you can probably make it a section on the Stampede Wrestling article.--Darren Jowalsen 18:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy Tim! 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Streets of Bogota, Colombia to Category:Streets in Bogotá - Darwinek 11:01, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "á" is not a letter of the English alphabet. Choalbaton 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Main article is at the correct English spelling of Bogotá. QED. Grutness...wha? 05:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: If you use the argument that á is not a letter of the English alphabet, by that logic you should change thousands of articles that use accented characters. Heck, there are probably thousands of articles that use Slavic diacritics! — Dale Arnett 15:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, every single one of them should lose the diacretics. This is a ludicrous piece of political correctness. Using diacretics is basically the same as using Chinese and Japanese characters...

      I don't see how using diacritics is the same as using Chinese/Japanese characters; the former are modifications to symbols, the latter are symbols...?

    • ...They aren't in English, but this is the English encyclopedia, so they don't belong here, except as a note of the foreign-language name. Choalbaton 13:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      But in lieu of an officially-recogniz/sed English-alphabet equivalent, surely a name using only the English alphabet is unencyclopedic (i.e. inaccurate and possibly misleading or original research)...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but please keep Category:Streets of Bogota, Colombia as a redirect to Category:Streets in Bogotá. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with redirect per ProveIt; "á", as with other letters with diacritics, essential in an encyclopedia so as not to misrepresent many people, places and other topics. David Kernow (talk) 17:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So basically you are saying that the English langauge is so substandard that it cannot be used in an English-language encyclopedia. What nonsense! Choalbaton 13:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry not to be clearer; I'm saying that people, places and other topics without officially, commonly or subject-condoned (i.e. agreed by the person or people associated with a place or topic) names using the English alphabet should not be misrepresented in a reference work such as an encyclopedia. I don't understand why this motivation might be political correctness...?  Regards, David (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongly Oppose á is not even a letter in Spanish. Spanish has very firm rules about pronunciation, including about which syllable receives the stress. Any exceptions to the emphasis patterns must be noted with an accent mark. Since English does not have those firm rules abut pronunciation, it is not necessary in order to be read correctly. I believe the wikipedia policy is to use the I.P.A. for pronunciation assistance, and that is where the emphasis should be noted.Juneappal 18:15, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If "Bogotá" is misspelt as regards its natives'/officials' point of view, then I agree; their spelling is required – unless they sanction an English-alphabet alternative. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 01:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy Tim! 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:British national museums to Category:National museums of the United Kingdom per categories by country conventions. Pascal.Tesson 23:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Should be Category:National museums in the United Kingdom. Choalbaton 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:American national museums to Category:National museums of the United States per categories by country conventions. Pascal.Tesson 23:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Should be Category:National museums in the United States. Choalbaton 20:06, 20 September 2006
  • Oppose both, prer Choalbaton. "National museums in [rather than of] Fooland" is a natural subcategory to "Museums in Fooland" (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 regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:26, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy Tim! 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Women in war to Category:Women in war and the military Asarelah 01:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose By no conceivable interpretation of the above rules is this a speedy. Choalbaton 20:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, senseless combination of distinct categories. Not all women who participated in wars were in the military, and vice versa; creating a separate Category:Female military personnel would be the cleaner approach here (but I wonder if even that is appropriate!). Kirill Lokshin 00:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, use more meaningful categorization like "female soldiers", "female war activists" etc. >Radiant< 09:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: whatever the result make sure that soldiers do not get mixed with notable civilians caught in the war. That would make the whole cat absurd. Pavel Vozenilek 17:18, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment From the various comments and concerns, it sounds like a portion of this category needs to be split into category:Women in the military, which would then be a sub-category of category:Women in war

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy Tim! 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Opposition to Apartheid in South Africa → Category:Opposition to apartheid in South Africa. David Kernow 22:40, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:International opposition to Apartheid → Category:International opposition to apartheid in South Africa. David Kernow 22:38, 14 September 2006 (UTC), amended 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it needs clarification. At first glance, I was going to vote delete, because it's another "supports/cristics of x" cat, but when I looked it over, it has organisations and topics (topics?!). - jc37
  • Comment - I suggest that they be tagged? - jc37 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think – hope – they are...?  David (talk) 08:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant the sub-categories : ) - jc37 10:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to category:Organisations opposed to apartheid in South Africa (used British spelling). - jc37 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • NOTE Can we rename "International opposition to apartheid" to "International opposition to apartheid in South Africa"? This follows the precedent established by the above category entitled "Opposition to apartheid in South Africa". --Ben Houston 23:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems a sensible idea, as the membership all appears to pertain to South Africa; have amended nom accordingly. Thanks for spotting!  David Kernow (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 16:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy Tim! 17:32, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Pre-18th century in sports to Category:Early history of sports as there is a category called category:17th century in sports and possibly scope for a 16th century one too. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:45, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object. Not eligible for speedy renaming. - EurekaLott 18:40, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, it appears to have been emptied. Recury 13:32, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Man eaters into Category:Animals that prey on humans

• Merge, I just created the latter category and another editor pointed out the existence of the former category to me. It appears to be unmaintained, is inconsistent with the types of articles linked to it, and a bit melodramatic in title (and arguably content). It might in fact be more appropriate to just delete it, because my intent with the 'Animals that prey on humans' category was simply to link to species articles that fit this definition, but it might be worthwhile to also somehow fold in some of the articles on man-eating incidents represented by this article. I'm undecided and welcome comments. Caliga10 16:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for now, I would say, then maybe you can decide later if you want to break down your category into individual animals that eat humans or not. That doesn't seem too necessary at the moment though, IMO. Recury 17:01, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; Category:Animals that prey on humans seems sufficient. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete both categories. Not encyclopedic. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Merge into Category:Animals that prey on humans and keep the later category. Johntex\^talk 15:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete both, not encyclopedic. Stefan 10:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (to match my deletion comment and reasons in the other nom). - jc37 12:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, see also Categories named after suffixes. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, what suffix the subcategories/articles have should not be a criteria for inclusion. Recury 16:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arbitary. Calsicol 17:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-useful. --Dhartung | Talk 04:35, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Anti-missionary topics, at least one of these should go. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. They contain one article, and that article has nothing to do with missionaries at all, but is rather someone's Torah study/POV fork/something, and should probably also be deleted. --tjstrf 16:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per tj. Recury 13:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per Recury. >Radiant< 09:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Public holidays in Vietnam --Kbdank71 16:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Holidays in Vietnam, convention of Category:Public holidays by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:06, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Public holidays in Vietnam; suggest all subcategories of Category:Public holidays by country renamed similarly to Category:Public holidays in X even if they and/or their articles carry "other" holidays (otherwise to Category:Public and other holidays in X. "Holidays in X" / "Xian holidays" / etc can suggest articles on travel, tourism, etc, etc. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Something to consider, there may be holidays that Vietnamese people (both inside and outside of Vietnam) celebrate, that are no longer recognized in the country of Vietnam officially. A lot of cultural changes occurred in the mid-70's when the communist government took over. Are there such holidays? I don't know. But something to consider and maybe find out. (This is not a "vote" either way.) Crockspot 14:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Holidays in Turkey, convention of Category:Public holidays by country. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It only contains one articles, and that is about a holiday that isn't celebrated in Turkey according to the article. Calsicol 17:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept or no consensus, rename to Category:Public holidays in Turkey per nom above. David Kernow (talk) 18:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, suspect bad-faith categorization here. --Dhartung | Talk 04:37, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:10, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Scouting leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Speedy Delete, I shouldn't have created this. All National Scout leaders should be cat'd under the appropriate "Category:Scouting by country". NThurston 14:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate. I don't see why you shouldn't have. These people clearly have a major attribute in common and it will be convenient to have them all in one place. Calsicol 17:20, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would suggest Speedy Delete, since this is another ((db-author)) situation, but since there is dissention...? - jc37 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wah Fu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, underpopulated, already covered by Category:Kellett Bay. minghong 14:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topographical name Kellett Bay is rarely extended to cover the Wah Fu area. — Instantnood 20:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:04, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cheap fictional characters to Category:Fictional misers

• Rename, miser is the proper term. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:05, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No matter whether it's called this or misers, it's still a POV judgment in the majority of cases. --tjstrf 14:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above, determining "miser" or "cheap" status is POV. Dugwiki 15:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify then Delete. - This could be a useful list for reference. But agreed that it requires citations/references. (Hence, a list.)- jc37 19:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. "Misers" seems a fine category.--Mike Selinker 14:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cyberport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Not used, already covered by Category:Telegraph Bay. minghong 13:59, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Recury 17:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. The piece of land Cyberport was built upon was reclaimed from the Telegraph Bay, but the topographical name Telegraph Bay is rarely used to refer to, associated with or identified as related to the Cyberport. — Instantnood 20:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Cinema by country --> Category:Cinema by nationality
• Category:Cinema of Albania -->Category:Albanian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Argentina -->Category:Argentine cinema
• Category:Cinema of Australia -->Category:Australian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Austria --> Category:Austrian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Bangladesh -->Category:Bangladeshi cinema
• Category:Cinema of Belgium -->Category:Belgian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Brazil -->Category:Brazilian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Bulgaria -->Category:Bulgarian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Burkina Faso -->Category:Burkinabe cinema
• Category:Cinema of Canada -->Category:Canadian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Catalonia -->Category:Catalan cinema
• Category:Cinema of Chile -->Category:Chilean cinema
• Category:Cinema of China -->Category:Chinese cinema
• Category:Cinema of Colombia -->Category:Colombian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Croatia -->Category:Croatian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Cuba -->Category:Cuban cinema
• Category:Cinema of Cyprus -->Category:Cypriot cinema
• Category:Cinema of the Czech Republic-->Category:Czech cinema
• Category:Cinema of Denmark-->Category:Danish cinema
• Category:Cinema of Egypt-->Category:Egyptian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Estonia-->Category:Estonian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Finland-->Category:Finnish cinema
• Category:Cinema of France-->Category:French cinema
• Category:Cinema of Germany-->Category:German cinema
• Category:Cinema of Ghana-->Category:Ghanaian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Greece-->Category:Greek cinema
• Category:Cinema of Hong Kong-->Category:Hong Kong cinema
• Category:Cinema of Hungary-->Category:Hungarian cinema
• Category:Cinema of India-->Category:Indian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Indonesia-->Category:Indonesian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Iran-->Category:Iranian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Ireland-->Category:Irish cinema
• Category:Cinema of Israel-->Category:Israeli cinema
• Category:Cinema of Italy-->Category:Italian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Japan-->Category:Japanese cinema
• Category:Cinema of Korea-->Category:Korean cinema
• Category:Cinema of Kyrgyzstan-->Category:Kyrgyz cinema
• Category:Cinema of Lebanon-->Category:Lebanese cinema
• Category:Cinema of Malaysia-->Category:Malaysian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Mali-->Category:Malian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Mexico-->Category:Mexican cinema
• Category:Cinema of the Netherlands-->Category:Dutch cinema
• Category:Cinema of New Zealand-->Category:New Zealand cinema
• Category:Cinema of Norway-->Category:Norwegian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Pakistan-->Category:Pakistani cinema
• Category:Cinema of Peru-->Category:Peruvian cinema
• Category:Cinema of the Philippines-->Category:Filipino cinema
• Category:Cinema of Poland-->Category:Polish cinema
• Category:Cinema of Puerto Rico-->Category:Puerto Rican cinema
• Category:Cinema of Romania-->Category:Romanian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Russia-->Category:Russian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Singapore-->Category:Singaporean cinema
• Category:Cinema of South Africa-->Category:South African cinema
• Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union-->Category:Soviet cinema
• Category:Cinema of Sri Lanka-->Category:Sri Lankan cinema
• Category:Cinema of Sweden-->Category:Swedish cinema
• Category:Cinema of Syria-->Category:Syrian cinema
• Category:Cinema of Taiwan-->Category:Taiwanese cinema
• Category:Cinema of Thailand-->Category:Thai cinema
• Category:Cinema of Turkey-->Category:Turkish cinema
• Category:Cinema of the United Kingdom-->Category:British cinema
• Category:Cinema of the United States-->Category:American cinema
• Category:Cinema of Yugoslavia-->Category:Yugoslavian cinema

• Rename in line with Wikipedia naming conventions for cultural categories, as with music, literature, culture, etc. JW 13:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose due to the many well-known perils of fooian notation. See for example Congolese footballers. ProveIt ^(talk) 14:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This category is of a completely different type from a category of footballers (and Congo should never be used as a precedent as it is the most awkwardly named country( or rather countries) in the world). Calsicol 17:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This is the standard naming convention. Please see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories):

"Socio-cultural topics

Subcategories of these categories are named "nationality ...." Art - Architecture - Classical music - Cuisine - Culture - Folk music - Heavy metal - Hip hop - Jazz - Literature - Music - Opera - Plays - Popular music - Radio - Rock music - Society "

You may not like naming any category Fooian x, but the naming convention has already been set by previous discussions. Cinema is a cultural topic, the same as literature, art or music. I've never seen terms like Cinema of Australia or Cinema of the United Kingdom used anywhere except Wikipedia. To the rest of the world they are Australian cinema and British cinema. JW 18:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - If so, then perhaps the standard should be looked at again. There is a concern that "Italian" (for example) could refer either to being made in Italy, being about Italy, being made by a native of Italy, being made by someone of Italian descent, being about people of Italian descent, etc etc etc. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision) comes to mind : ) - jc37 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, any reference or academic work on the subject would use the Fooian cinema convention. Titles like "Cinema of Italy" are neologisms. "Italian cinema" is certainly less ambiguous than Category:Italian films, but both are the accepted terms, and no one is seriously going to be confused about what they mean. Your concerns about what the terms mean (made by a native of Italy, made by someone of Italian descent, etc) could equally be applied to Cinema of Italy. "Cinema of Italy" is a lot more ambiguous in this regard, especially as it's not a term used anywhere else except Wikipedia, and it could easily be confused with "films about Italy". JW 20:04, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the category names are more succinct and follow the naming conventions. In this case, I think that the conventions really are what a casual or infrequent user would expect and be confortable with anyway. The "Congolese" question could be solved (if necessary) with "Congolese (Republic) cinema" versus "Congolese (Democratic Republic) cinema". A little unwieldy but to my mind better than the alternative. Mallanox 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose the current category names are less ambiguous. 132.205.44.134 01:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, because of the potential confusion with Category:Films by language. For example, renaming Category:Cinema of France to Category:French cinema would lead people to mistake it for Category:French-language films. - EurekaLott 02:00, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really a serious issue, as they are usually the same thing. JW 15:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're looking at cinema from france as the only french cinema. There are may other countries/places that use french... This is another extension of the confusion concern I mentioned in my "Italian" example above. (agreeing with radiant below - "of foo" is better here.) - jc37 17:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "French cinema" is not used to describe French-language films, just like "English cinema" is not used to describe English-language films. Countries like Senegal which use the French language are considered part of African cinema, not French cinema. "French cinema" always means "from France", not "in the French language". JW 08:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the above, "of foo" is better here. >Radiant< 09:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 16:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with mental illness to Category:Mentally ill fictional characters

• Rename, A more succinct title. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• More succinct, but I wonder if it takes too much focus away from the category's essence (ficitional characters)...?  David Kernow (talk) 18:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per David Kernow. - jc37 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities --Kbdank71 16:00, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional disabled people to Category:Disabled fictional characters

• This isn't my nomination, just finishing it up. Rename by the way. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Fictional characters with disabilities per nom above...?  David Kernow (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities , per David Kernow. - jc37 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities. --Mike Selinker 14:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters with disabilities, fits better under Category:People with disabilities. -- nae'blis 17:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Fictional characters who have been genetically engineered --Kbdank71 15:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional genetically engineered people to Category:Genetically engineered fictional characters

• Rename, "Characters" is preferred to "people", not all characters listed in category are human. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Fictional characters who are genetically engineered or Category:Fictional characters with genetic engineering, per nom above...?  David Kernow (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters who have been genetically engineered, per David Kernow. (changed "are" to "have been", since it's an action, not a state of being.) - jc37 19:17, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters who have been genetically engineered. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Fictional characters with autism --Kbdank71 15:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional autistic people to Category:Fictional autistics

• Rename, Not all fictional characters are people. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 13:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Fictional characters with autism per noms above...? David Kernow (talk) 18:09, 21 September 2006 (UTC), amended 18:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters with autism per David Kernow. - jc37 19:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Fictional characters with autism. -- AnemoneProjectors (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:Filipino football clubs --Kbdank71 15:55, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philipino football clubs into Category:Football clubs in the Philippines

• Merge, redundant category. Wrongly spelled too. --Howard the Duck 07:55, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, obviously there should only be one category for this, but the convention at Category:Football (soccer) clubs is ____ian football clubs. So we should probably merge both of these into a new category called Category:Filipino football clubs. Recury 16:50, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well then, merge per Recury. --Howard the Duck 08:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Recury. — Dale Arnett 12:44, 22 September 2006 (UTC) (Just realized that you can't have a speedy if both categories exist... changed from speedy to merge.)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villages in New South Wales into Category:Towns in New South Wales

• Merge, There is no statutory basis for telling a town from a village in NSW. The two categories have no other ascertainable criteria to distinguish one from the other. Therefore they are completely arbitrary, and it makes sense to have a single category of Towns in New South Wales from which all towns in NSW can be accessed. JROBBO 06:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge -- Longhair 13:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If the term village is used locally, even informally (and looking at the sample of the articles suggests it is) then both categories should be merged into category:Towns and villages in New South Wales and they should also be retained as redirects. Calsicol 17:18, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • - If this is to be done, then all Australian categories should be renamed this way. At the moment having a "towns and villages" category is inconsistent with every other state and territory in Australia which have only "Cities" and "Towns" categories. Whatever way this ends up, there should be consistency. However, I'm still opposed to this move - Australian geographic terms are not like the US or UK, where a village is a defined category that is smaller than a town. A town usually has its own postcode, etc. In Australia we have "localities" which are usually rural places that aren't established towns with their own non-residential areas. (JROBBO 03:57, 23 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge both to category:Towns and villages in New South Wales, per Calsicol. - jc37 19:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both to category:Towns and villages in New South Wales, per Calsicol. Choalbaton 13:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Towns in New South Wales as proposed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. We should not mislabel places merely because some people use the wrong term. - EurekaLott 18:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Village is not a term widely used in Australia, except perhaps by real estate agents. Towns is the proper category. --Michael Johnson 04:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:2005-06 Domestic leagues to Category:2005-06 domestic football (soccer) leagues
• Category:2006-07 Domestic leagues to Category:2006-07 domestic football (soccer) leagues
• Rename both. First, "domestic" should not be capitalized. Second, IMHO, the category titles need to include the sport. All the articles in both categories deal with football (soccer). — Dale Arnett 03:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename of both categories. -- Chuq 09:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see the advantage of excluding things like the UEFA Champions League by having the word "domestic" in the category title. How about Category:2005-06 in football (soccer) (and etc.)? Recury 16:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - "domestic" as opposed to "foreign"? If so, then a country needs to be named. - jc37 18:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments by nominator:
    • There are already categories for the UEFA Champions League, UEFA Cup, AFC Champions League, and CAF Champions League (although the AFC category is very thinly populated right now).
    • I can see the point about "domestic", and I wouldn't particluarly object if that word gets removed.
    • Recury, your proposal of a 2005-06 category brings up another issue. As of now, all "year in" categories in football span only one calendar year (e.g., 2006 in football (soccer), 2005 in football (soccer), et al.). However, a large number of countries (maybe most of them) have domestic seasons that extend across more than one calendar year. I'm starting to think that this nomination may be an issue of interest to the Football WikiProject. — Dale Arnett 12:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Ok, I'm officially confused. I looked over the category, and I see what appears to be a British league, and a Danish league. Can you clarify? - jc37 02:02, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I believe that a "domestic league" is defined as a league of teams contained within a country, such as FA Premier League and as opposed to a league which contains members from different countries, such as UEFA Champions League. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - ok, That was my eventual guess. (and ty very much for the clarification : ) Can someone write up a better intro in the category clarifying all of that? - jc37 09:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, for now. The nom's naming of the articles is better than the status quo for sure. The other issues are pretty complicated and would probably need to be done in a seperate CFD. Recury 16:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, as per closed discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_April_19#Category:WikiProject_Schools. The category that schools are in is "WikiProject Schools Articles" --- Skapur 03:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, used as parent for Category:WikiProject Schools Articles. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but move the users to Category:WikiProject Schools members, so that all that is left here is the WikiProject and the templates and any appropriate subcategories or WikiProject Schools/subpages. Also, I'm going to separately tag Category:WikiProject Schools Articles with ((cfr-speedy)). --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 14:57, 21 September 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.