< April 3	April 5 >

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 Category:Organisations in Somerset to Category:Organisations based in Somerset. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Organisations in Somerset to Category:Organisations based in Somerset

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, in line with the convention that organisations are categorised by the locality where they are based, not to every locality where they happen to operate. Hawkestone 23:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Per Hawkestone. Thx.--Keefer4 | Talk 23:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 23:55, 6 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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 Category:Organisations in West Sussex into Category:Organisations based in West Sussex. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organisations in West Sussex to Category:Organisations based in West Sussex

• Merge,in line with the convention that organisations are categorised by the locality in which they are based, not to all localities in which they have a branch. Hawkestone 23:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, per Hawkestone above, and as opposed to the Cornish nomination which could incorporate language and cultural organizations which are based elsewhere. There is no similar concern here to speak of. And besides the "in" is already in the cat. title here, so...--Keefer4 | Talk 23:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. AshbyJnr 23:55, 6 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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 keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Narnia templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category has no text and few entries, the entries should be moved to a broder category. -PatPeter 22:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - I see no problem with this scheme if the WP finds it useful. Also, the WP was not notified of this discussion and the nominator is unlikely to do so now that they are banned for the next year. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:27, 10 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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 all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:American Samoa Related Ships to Category:United States Navy American Samoa-related ships
• Category:District of Columbia Related Ships to Category:United States Navy District of Columbia-related ships
• Category:Guam Related Ships to Category:United States Navy Guam-related ships
• Category:United States Virgin Islands Related Ships to Category:United States Navy Virgin Islands-related ships

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, to conform with the MOS. See the rename proposal for United States Navy state-related ships here, and failed deletion proposal here. jwillbur^talk 22:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and linked discussion. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:29, 10 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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 keep. Nominating a category for deletion on the basis that it contains only one member when one has orphaned it oneself [1] without consent of the users in it is heavy handed at best and an abuse of this process at worse. In any event, a fresh discussion should be started at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion if there are other reasons to delete this category. WjBscribe 04:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cub Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category only has one member. -PatPeter 22:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close and move to Wikipedia:User categories for discussion. Otto4711 22:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the category has only one member because the nominator removed everyone that was in it. I added myself back in. Mallanox 23:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC) As I have a vested interest I won't say any more here.[reply]

• Speedy close and do not move to WP:UCFD, the category was emptied against the rules. — coelacan — 23:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close - per previous comments. Note that the nom already speedy-tagged this cat - Alison^☺ 03:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Right after emptying it, while in at least one instance claiming it was already a redlink,[2] removing it from its creator's userbox by claiming something about rules,[3] and then replacing the category with Category:Gay Wikipedians which is apparently "a real category, other than a fake one alluding to masculine gays".[4] — coelacan — 03:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's been around since 13 March, so it couldn't have been redlinked by then. As for the other edits ... wow! - Alison^☺ 04:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close - per links from Coelacan - Alison^☺ 04:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I will respond tomorrow if not tonight. -PatPeter 03:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - let's wait until the nom returns before close/decide - Alison^☺ 04:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as per information given by Coelacan above. -Aleta 04:24, 5 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 11:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category: Economies of the Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China
• Category: Banks of the Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China
• Category: Companies of the Special Administrative Regions of the People's Republic of China

Useless categories. Category: Something of Hong Kong and Category: Something of Macau can be placed right below Category: Something of the People's Republic of China, given Category: Something of mainland China exists whenever necessary and appropriate. There is no Category: Companies of the insular areas of the United States or Category: Companies of the British overseas territories. - Privacy 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - Privacy 21:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - A real mess, and seems to require an overhaul in cat. structure from a higher level down.--Keefer4 | Talk 08:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unless the following categories are also deleted:
  • Category:Economy of mainland China
  • Category:Banks of mainland China
  • Category:Companies of mainland China
• There are long-standing disputes over the use of the term Mainland China in more formal contexts, such as in article titles and category names, and the status quo has been a preference for the country name of the People's Republic of China. User:Privacy has ignored this, and unilaterally created the above categories, unleashing a new round of disputes. One primary contention over the creation of the above categories as sub-categories of the PRC, is that places "Mainland China" on par with "Hong Kong" and "Macau", a presentation which is highly politically sensitive. The above three categories helps mitigate this issue to some degree. Ultimately, there is little reason why entries in the Mainland China categories cannot exist simply in the PRC article, for that is precisely where they are in, and that is where they are primarily identified with.--Huaiwei 15:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:economy of mainland China was recently voted to be undeleted and kept. (And therefore please justify " unilaterally ".) Refer to the evidence that I have presented earler at Wikipedia talk:categorisation, and see if it is as " politically sensitive " as you have imagined to place mainland China together with Hong Kong and Macao.

    " Ultimately, there is little reason why entries in the Mainland China categories cannot exist simply in the PRC " - They can exist in Asian categories too, because, to use your own words, " that is precisely where they are in ". — Instantnood 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. - All 6 should go, IMO, as POV Forks, but the 3 nominees should be deleted on their own demerits and not be tied to the other 3. "X of Macau" and "X of Hong Kong" should be subcats of "X of PRC," "X of mainland China" is nonsensical per Huaiwei because the "mainland" qualifier is strictly geographical and superfluous to the subject. I disagree with Huaiwei however, that "X of SAR of the PRC" mitigates anything, and instead contributes to making a confusing category scheme. Instead of trying to maneuver through a political minefield, I think we should aim to be as user-friendly as possible. These are issues that should be hammered out on talk pages, not through category wars and forks. bobanny 16:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. All three were created out of POV motives. — Instantnood 18:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Very humorous, but delete all six per Bobany. There are 33 (34 with claimed Taiwan) first level administrative divisions of the PRC[5], not two or three, or whatever strange combo this situation creates. Deleting the extra three that Huaiwei mentions is just as important as deleting those nominated, it is different sides of the same POV dispute. SchmuckyTheCat 19:14, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Please refer to the first paragraph of my comment above in response to user:Huaiwei. — Instantnood 20:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unnecessary intermediate categories. AshbyJnr 23:56, 6 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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 (I think it would be better to renominate in a couple of weeks as the second proposal came rather late in the day to get proper attention). Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Reformed theologians to Category:Calvinists

• Merge, the terms are basically synonymous, and while some (including me) have drawn a fine distinction between the two, there are no commonly agreed upon criteria for doing so. Flex (talk|contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, The terms are basically synonymous, and while some (including me) have drawn a fine distinction between the two, there are no commonly agreed upon criteria for doing so. Therefore, we ought to include all who are commonly called Calvinists, perhaps trying to find better subcategories (e.g., Category:Confessional Calvinists, Category:Neo-orthodox Calvinists, Category:Conservative Calvinists, or whatever). I have proposed that we keep "Calvinists" rather than "Reformed theologians" because the former is less confusing when trying to decide if, say, a notable but run-of-the-mill pastor qualifies as a theologian proper. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See new nomination below. --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, possibly rename: They're not quite synonyms. Calvinist or Reformed theologians are a subset of Calvinist or Reformed people, which is what Category:Calvinists covers. A.J.A. 20:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be fine with renaming it to Category:Calvinist theologians, but it doesn't seem like Category:Calvinists contains only non-theologians (e.g., James Petigru Boyce, to pick a semi-random example). So while that cat could be used to mean "Calvinist people" and the theologians cat could be used for those who write, speak, or teach on the subject professionally as you suggest, that's currently not how they're being used -- everyone in there is a professional Calvinist, but they're divided up as either Calvinist or Reformed. The issue for me is when people say that some Calvinists are not Reformed in some sense, while many use the terms basically synonymously. I want to abolish this distinction due to lack of consensual definitions. --Flex (talk|contribs) 20:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good points. There are a few in Category:Calvinists who couldn't be included in a theologian category (a lot of Hungarian politicians, for some reason), but generally the distinction isn't being made. For the sake of better classification there should be a sub-cat for theologians. (Obviously a person can fall into more than one sub-cat, which as far as I know is fine.) A.J.A. 05:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • So does that change your vote? --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep & sub-cat Calvinists under Reformed. Zwingli, Arminius, Barth, Amyraut, and Baxter are all "Reformed theologians". None of them, except by exaggerated equivalence (some more exaggerated than others), should be called "Calvinists". — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So by "Keep" you actually mean that we should reverse the existing cat/subcat relationship? As we discussed at some length at Template_talk:Calvinism, I believe WP:NPOV requires that we use the terms Calvinist and Reformed theologian descriptively rather than prescriptively. That is to say, because there is no general agreement on the distinction between the two (you have proposed one, the existing scheme represents another, others were proposed in our former discussion, etc.), we must apply them how they are commonly used, which is rather broadly and inclusively, rather than applying our own theological perspectives to prescribe how they ought to be narrowed and used (cf. your "should be"). To return to the example of Karl Barth, even though you and I don't like to consider him a Calvinist proper, he ought to be categorized as such because he is commonly considered one in reliable sources such as the Harvard Theological Review ("...Calvin and Barth, as Reformed theologians, ..."[6]) and the Scottish Journal of Theology ("Barth [is] Calvinism's greatest theologian since Calvin"[7]). In short, we need to come up with a better, more neutral categorization scheme (cf. the discussion above), and as a first step I am proposing we merge these two cats and work from there. --Flex (talk|contribs) 13:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calvinists are a sub-category of "Reformed". If that's not the way that we have it, then we should change it. Also "Questionably Calvinist" can belong under both, "Reformed" and "Questionably Reformed" - but that's neither here nor there, since we should only attempt to categorize what is categorizable. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 15:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hear what you're saying: the Reformed tradition includes, e.g., Zwinglians, not just Calvinists. The non-neutral distinction I am trying to eradicate through renaming is that some people may be called "Calvinists" but not "Reformed," which your comment seems to fully agree with since you say all Calvinists are Reformed. In the renamed scheme, Baptist theologian James Petigru Boyce, for example, would be listed under Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians, though currently he is listed as a Calvinist but not under its subcat Reformed theologians. In short, I would like to see you vote aye below, and then worry about supercats and subcats later (this CFD/CFM/CFR is only concerned with fixing a neutrality issue in the current scheme, not expanding the hierarchy). --Flex (talk|contribs) 16:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! We also want articles on Calvinist musicians, Calvinist painters and Calvinist scientists... StAnselm 07:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, but please read my responses above. I'm not proposing merger for the reason you apparently think I'm proposing the merger. (Based on your reasoning, I think you'd at least vote "rename to Category:Calvinist theologians" per my comments to AJA above.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 02:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians. I think the largest groups of Calvinists that show up on Wikipedia are a) ministers b) politicians c) Theologians. I'd recommend a combined category for ministers and theologians, since it's often difficult to distinguish between the two. We could consider Calvinist clergy or something, but I think Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians would be best. I'd also recommend Category:Calvinist politicians (this would include kings and the like). -- TimNelson 07:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not opposed to this, but it will probably mean that Category:Calvinists will be empty except for its subcats. I like seeing the shorter and simpler "Calvinist" as a synonym for "Calvinist theologian" (it is a theological position, after all, and it is in common use as such, e.g. "Did you know Spurgeon was a Calvinist?") since it makes it a little less bulky, but I can live with your solution as a compromise. --Flex (talk|contribs) 11:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, yes, but it's also "an approach to the Christian life" (Calvinism), so Calvinist painters, etc, will end up here until they have their own subctegories (which I'd say we shouldn't do until we have enough of them). So probably not empty, but probably sparsely populated. I also agree that Neo-orthodox Calvinists should have a separate category. -- TimNelson 11:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, but it's specifically a theological approach to life. For clarification: Are you suggesting we have two (or more) branches under Calvinism -- (1) Category:Calvinists by occupation which contains cats for, e.g., artists, politicians, and minister/theologians, and (2) Calvinist by doctrine (or whatever), which contains cats for, e.g., conservative (which could be further divided into, say, strict subscriptionists and non-strict subscriptionists), liberal, and neo-orthodox, OR baptist, presbyterian, Dutch reformed, etc.? I see this subcatting by doctrine getting pretty sticky unless we just go with a few broad subcats. I'll change the nomination to rename, and we can consider subcats separately. --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The definition of "Reformed" is a debate topic. The existing category is OR. Yakuman (数え役満) 04:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The definition of what qualifies one as a "Calvinist"/"Reformed" is somewhat debatable, just as, e.g., "Christian" is (does it include Mormons? Non-trinitarians? etc.), but that doesn't make it original research. Rather, contentiousness means that we need to carefully observe the neutrality policy -- include all significant points of view on the matter and stick to reliable sources, such as those I quoted in my response to Mark above and the many others that exist. Some of these may be in conflict, but neutrality requires we be inclusive rather than exclusive. --Flex (talk|contribs) 12:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changing nomination[edit]

• Rename Category:Reformed theologians to Category:Calvinist ministers and theologians for the reasons discussed above. (We'll worry about what subcats and supercats to add elsewhere. Just vote on this one item, please, since this CFD is only concerned with fixing a neutrality issue in the current scheme, not expanding the hierarchy.) --Flex (talk|contribs) 00:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pro -- TimNelson 12:14, 12 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Hillcrest Round Table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete - this is sort of like the fraternal organizations categories and sort of like the honors and awards categories too. Strikes me that the existing list at Hillcrest Round Table is the superior organizational scheme here. Otto4711 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This is categorization by an informal social organization. The people in this category (such as Groucho Marx are not primarily defined as belonging to the group. This is already listed at Hillcrest Round Table. Dr. Submillimeter 06:54, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. LukeHoC 12:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Dr. SubmillimeterAshbyJnr 23:57, 6 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cable magnates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete in the absence of any objective definition of what constitutes being a "magnate." Otto4711 19:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC section 3 (subjective criterion for inclusion). "Magnate" is a subjective term. Alternatively, rename to Category:People in the cable industry. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would weakly support a rename to something like Category:Cable executives (tighter definition than the vague "people in...") if it is determined there is encyclopedic value in the categorization. Otto4711 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete subjective cat. Doczilla 04:47, 5 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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 Category:Synesthetes to Category:People with synesthesia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Synesthetes to Category:People with synesthesia

Nominator's Rationale: Rename for medical accuracy and for consistency with the majority of other listings under Category:People_by_medical_or_psychological_condition, such as People with acromegaly, People with schizophrenia, People with multiple sclerosis, etc. The category's own definition does not call them synesthetes, but rather specifies that it is for people with the condition known as synesthesia. Doczilla 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 18:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. According to the American Psychological Association conventions on "person-first" language, this is also the appropriate decision. Edhubbard 19:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and Ed. The new name is also clearer, too, for people who are not familiar with synesthesia, they can at least look at the phrase "people with something" and grok that it is a category of people. "Synesthetes" sounds like it might be a brand of home appliances. — coelacan — 16:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment :-) That's a brand I'd buy! Edhubbard 18:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and send me a Synesthetes toaster. Pascal.Tesson 17:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure you want one? The toast always tastes blue to me. — coelacan — 20:52, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: This might be out of order here, but reflecting on this proposal has also made me think that the Famous synesthetes page should be moved, perhaps to Famous people with synesthesia. Any comments would be greatly appreciated on the talk page for Famous synesthetes. It should only take a few minutes to move the page, but should I then also go and change the links on the pages that link to it? Edhubbard 21:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Edhubbard moved it already to list of people with synesthesia, per that talk page discussion, so there's no need to chime in there unless you disagree and prefer a different title. — coelacan — 22:11, 6 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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 Category:Principals to Category:School principals and headteachers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Principals to Category:School principals and headteachers

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, for clarity and geographical neutrality. Postlebury 17:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Agree with renaming. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - "Principal" can have other meanings outside education, e.g. (in security parlance) the person guarded by a bodyguard. The rename will also reduce systemic bias. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. AshbyJnr 23:57, 6 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Film studio executives. >Radiant< 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movie moguls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:American movie moguls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete both in the absence of any objective criteria for what constitutes being a "mogul." Otto4711 16:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as subjective per nom. Doczilla 18:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Movie company owners or Category:Movie studio owners. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per TonyTheTiger. The term "mogul" is an entirely subjective criterion. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem with the suggested rename is that the people in the categories are not all owners of film studios (any rename should use "film" as opposed to "movie" per naming conventions). Some are studio executives with no ownership interests, some are owners or executives of production companies and so on. It also opens the door to including people who own stock in film studios but who otherwise have no role in studio operations, which would be a miscategorization. If there is an interest in categorizing film studio executives or owners it would probably be best to start from scratch with newly-created categories. Otto4711 19:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I'm still not sure here. Looks like the articles that might define this are not where you would expect with a lot of redirects. So we do have some definitions for these types of classifications. I'm not sure how clear and objective they are. The definitions do include examples, so clearly those individuals should be acceptable in the category. The question is about everyone else. Not sure if a listify would be a better choice yet. Vegaswikian 20:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• What articles do you mean? Would you link them here? Otto4711 20:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Business magnate seems to be where everything is kind of defined. You can also check out Media proprietor. Vegaswikian 22:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral Rename (rename to Category:Film studio executives) - Needs to be recategorized as something else, but not sure at the moment what it should be called, considering the issues raised by Vegaswikian.--Keefer4 | Talk 08:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose unless someone can come up with something better and means the same thing. These categories are reflect the personality driven nature of the early studio system. LukeHoC 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Film studio executives is better and, while it doesn't mean precisely the same thing, has the advantage of being objectively defineable where "mogul" is not. Note that the category does not limit itself to the early days of the studio system, as it includes contemporary people like Jeffrey Katzenberg, George Lucas and Steven Spielberg. Those in the category who are not studio executives may be categorized as producers, directors and what-not, which are also objectively defineable. Otto4711 19:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename as proposed by Otto4711 and isn't a studio mogul the movie guy one just snowboarded over? Carlossuarez46 00:04, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that I'm not proposing a rename. I'm proposing deletion and, if there's an interest in categorizing film studio executives, starting fresh with newly-created categories rather than renaming one or the other of these. Otto4711 18:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first preference is delete, if someone were to create a category as Category:Film studio executives that would be OK by me. Carlossuarez46 15:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. >Radiant< 11:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Catholic comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, or Rename to Category:Roman Catholic comedians, convention of Category:Roman Catholics by occupation. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Roman Catholic comedians Rename to match the convention. As with other profession-by-religion categories, though, it should be restricted to comedians whose Catholic beliefs directly influence their career. Also, I wonder if Father Guido Sarducci falls under this category? He's a fictional character who is catholic, and a lot of his humor is directly tied to Roman Catholic references, but the comedian Don Novello himself might or might not be Catholic (I'm not sure). Dugwiki 15:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there is a "Catholic way to do comedy". — coelacan — 16:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 18:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla. Clear case of overcategorisation - Catholicism has nothing to do with success or failure in the comedy profession. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorization. Otto4711 19:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No other categories exist for comedians of other religions, and the comedians' religion probably has little or no influence on their careers. This category is therefore inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 22:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're forgetting Category:Jewish comedy and its subcategory Category:Jewish American comedians. Dugwiki 20:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. LukeHoC 12:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I see some comments above that a "comedian's religion has little or no influence on their careers." However I would argue that is not necessarily true. For example, there are a fair number of Jewish comedians such as Jackie Mason and Mel Brooks who are well known for incorporating their Jewish heritage into their humor (see Category:Jewish comedy for other examples). And I think one could reasonably argue that radio personality Garrison Keillor could be called a "Lutheran comedian" based on the amount of Lutheran references he reguarly uses in his own material on A Prairie Home Companion. Now maybe Catholics as a rule don't poke fun at themselves as often as Jewish comedians, but I wouldn't discount the possibility out of hand that notable comedians exist who are not only Catholic but who also incorporate that Catholic heritage into their repertoire. Dugwiki 20:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Before you made this comment, I reviewed my own comments and realized that I should have been more explicit. Some comedians do incorporate religion into their humor (as is the case with the examples cited above). However, the vast majority do not incorporate religion into their humor. Stephen Colbert, Chris Farley, Bob Newhart, and Conan O'Brian are good examples of this, as I would not have guessed that any of these people were catholic based on their performances, nor would I have ever thought about these people's religious beliefs. This is why categorization by religion is inappropriate here. Dr. Submillimeter 21:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If there are a few cases where religion is relevant, that is not sufficient to justify adding this category to the sackful of articles where it is irrelevant. AshbyJnr 23:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as improper intersection, there is no article Roman Catholic comedy and I venture one cannot be written, and although we don't have an article Jewish comedy, I venture one could be constructed along the lines of similar articles like Borsht Belt etc. And Jewish is an ethnicity (which many seem to forget, oddly, around Easter.) Carlossuarez46 00:08, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a little further delving we do have Jewish humor but not Roman Catholic humor. Carlossuarez46 00:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. Don't go by what is or isn't in wikipedia at present. Wikipedia is supposed to be open to growth and different kinds of people. Feminist Art Movement wasn't in Wikipedia until a few months ago, but that's just because Wikipedia is mostly men. It is a well-established phenomenon. Likewise Catholic humor and Catholic comedy are the source of a bit of study and there are other things on Catholic comedians. Plus we do have an article Humor about Catholicism.--T. Anthony 03:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). 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 Category:Castles in France to Category:Châteaux in France. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Castles in France to Category:Châteaux in France

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Translating "Chateau" as "Castle" and only as "Castle" isn't very accurate due to the different nuances of French and English. Dozens of these buildings would be called country houses in England, not castles. But on the other hand, as all French chateaux, whether early castles or later houses form a stylistic continuity, trying to devide them up into "Castles" and "Houses" to would be rather artificial. "Chateau" is familiar enough to English speakers to be used, and indeed has arguably been adopted into English, eg in America the chateau style is a well known choice for new houses. There is already a category called Category:Châteaux of the Loire Valley and in English, the châteaux of the Loire are always referred to as just that, not the "Castles of the Loire" or the "Houses of the Loire". If renamed the category should be inclued in both Category:Castles in France, and Category:Houses in France. The latter is currently rather stunted, because most of the articles about houses are in the castles category. Jamie Mercer 13:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Château in France (spelling of Châteaux in English, see Château) -- Cat ^chi? 14:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment The plural of Château is Châteaux Bluap 15:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  [8] "Châteaus" also seems to be plural. No big deal either way. Both ways works for me, I would prefer a non-french spelling though -- Cat ^chi? 18:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and Bluap. Postlebury 17:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Perhaps the "s" plural is used in America, but it isn't familiar to me. According to google the x form is prevalent by 30 to 1 on UK sites and by 5 to 1 on English language sites overall. LukeHoC 12:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod 20:33, 7 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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 Category:Culture of Kurdistan, merge Category:Kurdistani media and Category:Media of Kurdistan into Category:Kurdish-language media. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture of Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Media of Kurdistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Kurdistani media (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Kurdistan is a controversial and ill-defined region (no defined borders). It neither has formal/dejure recognition (it isn't recognized as a country) nor has informal/defacto recognition (it doesnt claim to be a country).

In addition the two categories only contain one article about a website. I do not see any need for three categories for two articles of which one may be deleted for being non-notable.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the two media categories and rename the result to Category:Kurdish-language media per convention of Category:Media by language.
• Delete the culture category. Otto4711 14:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I would support the rename to Category:Kurdish-language media -- Cat ^chi? 14:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - a category at Kurdish-language media can be created seperately per Wikipedia conventions per Cool Cat. Baristarim 12:56, 5 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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 Category:Former states in Kurdistan to Category:Former Kurdish states. The proposed renaming addresses the point identified by the delete opinions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former states in Kurdistan to Category:Former Kurdish states

Nominator's Rationale: Rename, Kurdistan is a controversial and ill-defined region (no defined borders). Kurdistan is a controversial and ill-defined region (no defined borders). It neither has formal/dejure recognition (it isn't recognized as a country) nor has informal/defacto recognition (it doesnt claim to be a country).

As far as I can see, the intended scope for this category is former "Kurdish" states.

-- Cat ^chi? 13:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as the nominator says, the term "Kurdistan" is subjective, hence fails WP:OC section 3 (subjective criteria for inclusion). I can't think of a renaming that would be less subjective. Walton ^{Vivat Regina!} 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Walton. Baristarim 12:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Former Kurdish states has no reliance on what is Kurdistan or not. Carlossuarez46 00:13, 8 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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. I'm inclined to think that Carcharoth's argument trumps everything else said here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Suggest renaming. I was under the impression we didn't use the word "famous" in cat names. I kind of see the point of this cat, but perhaps it should simply be "Dogs" or "Individual dogs" rather than "Famous dogs", etc. >Radiant< 13:34, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I missing something? There's more than just dogs in there. Are you using dogs as an example? It looks like you are suggesting we change the word animals to dogs in this category. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an example. I was referring to the cat "famous animals" and subcats like "famous dogs". Similarly, "famous cats" -> "individual cats", etc. >Radiant< 10:48, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Individual Dogs Yeah, we usually try and avoid the word "famous" since it's an unnecessary somewhat subjective term (all articles are presumably about subjects of some notability). Individual dogs sounds ok. Dugwiki 15:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename parent and all "famous" subcategories to "individual X". There are some subcategories not using this word, just ignore them. — coelacan — 16:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the parent Category:Famous organisms. Which strikes me as a hilarious category name so I hope we can keep it. Otto4711 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am confused on why Lassie is in Category:Famous dogs, but not Category:Animal actors. This category needs to be revamped. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The article Lassie looks to be about the character as opposed to any of the various dogs who portrayed her. Which leads me to believe it should be in Category:Fictional dogs instead (which it turns out it is). Pal (dog actor), who played Lassie originally, is in the animal actors category. Otto4711 19:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The point of the word famous is to distinguish it from the Category:Animals. In Wikipedia the use of the word famous or notable is usually superfluous, but in this case we clearly need something to add and "famous" is the term readers will most likely use in searches. I believe this is one of the cases where using the word "famous" in a title is useful. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems the same issue would arise with anything preceded by "famous", wouldn't it? The articles and categories show up because people think they have to use this word to find things they want. Some readers would likely search for Category:Famous buildings to find architectural works like Category:Frank Lloyd Wright buildings. I don't think this tendency should be encouraged or used to keep titles that use WP:PEACOCK terms; that just encourages more WP:WAX thinking. I think "individual" works fine as a replacement for "famous" here, and people can find their "famous dogs" with a quick perusal of Category:Dogs which will lead them to the subcategory for individuals. If there is a widespread expectation that the "famous" categories will keep being recreated because people can't figure this out, then category redirects would make sense. — coelacan — 18:28, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How is "Individual" any better. I know what it's supposed to mean because I'm in this discussion now, but if I was a random passerby I wouldn't have a clue as to what it was supposed to refer to. Individual is an ambiguous word and could refer to any number of things and most important of all, it doesn't sound natural. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm. Well, I really don't know how to answer that. It sounds natural to me. I can see that you may have a point, but I don't know how to address it without drawing on subjective perspective. Well, sort of. I googled for "individual dogs" and found 112,000 sites using the phrase; among the first ten results were this this, and this. That suggests to me that the phrase has some currency already to mean "this particular dog", and of course "this particular dog on Wikipedia" is always a notable dog. — coelacan — 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to Individual X - I've been wanting to do this for months, and was just getting ready to since I did a test case with Bibles. If you want me to tag all the subcats to a proposed name, please drop me a note on my talk page. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 02:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer "famous" I know it's a bit problematic to keep "famous" in the title of any category but "individual dogs" or "individual x" seems awkward and just a contorted way of saying "famous" and there is more risk that the category will be used incorrectly. That being said, I don't feel so strongly about it and I'd like to reassure Otto "Individual organisms" is pretty hilarious too! Pascal.Tesson 17:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The present names won't cause any practical problems, and there is no reason to avoid using the most natural term other than a dogmatic insistence on applying a rule that was created to present the hyping of articles about people. Piccadilly 09:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Piccadilly (nice name!). I agree that famous is not normally used, but that's what WP:IAR is for (sort of). The use of words like "Historic" could be considered, though I remember insisting onces that Category:Historic floods and Category:Historic fires be renamed Category:Floods and Category:Fires. The real problem here is that the category should be called Category:Animals - as that category should contain articles about individual animals. Similarly, Category:People (or rather its subcategories) contains articles about individual people. The history, biology, and sociology of humans is found in different categories. Similarly, the generic animal articles, such as lion, zebra, cat and so on, should be in a category other than Category:Animals, something like Category:Zoology (ie. the study of animals, as opposed to biographical articles about individual animals). SO the real root of the problem is that Category:Animals is too vague a title and currently encompasses the biographical animal articles, the zoological animal articles, the taxonomic animal articles, and others such as animal rights and so on. Carcharoth 17:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. The CfD notice on the category has mispelled the word "individual" - in case the renaming goes ahead, can someone change this in the right places so the bot doesn't blindly replicate this spelling error? Thanks. Carcharoth 17:45, 10 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete, as unrelated subjects with shared names. bobanny 07:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Except for the name, these articles are unrelated and should not be grouped together. For example, Asante Kotoko, a football (soccer) team in Ghana, has very little to do with Molefi Kete Asante, an African-American scholar. Dr. Submillimeter 08:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion this would make a good disambiguation page (if one doesn't exist). Aside from that no reason to keep. -- Cat ^chi? 13:39, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Asante is already a disambiguation page. Dr. Submillimeter 13:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note the bogus Wikiquote and the entry CA?. Methinks it's some kind of cryptic joke (from the maker of Category:Vlad). bobanny 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - CA? has been nominated for deletion at WP:RFD. Dr. Submillimeter 22:26, 4 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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. Neither of the subjects is "Overseas Chinese" or "British of Chinese descent" so far as I can tell. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chinese writers in London (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overly specific category. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference. Doczilla 07:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This type of subdivision by ethnicity/nationality and city seems too narrow to be useful for categorization. Dr. Submillimeter 08:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dr. Submillimeter Abberley2 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category: Overseas Chinese writers and Category: British of Chinese descent. - Privacy 21:30, 6 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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 Category:Operetta librettists into Category:Opera librettists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Operetta librettists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category is superfluous as it is already covered by Category:Opera librettists. - Kleinzach 02:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, though weakly. Operas and Operettas are different, aren't they? Student7 02:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, operettas are one of about 20 different genres of opera and they are performed by the same musicians as the other forms of opera. Operetta is covered in all the main reference works on opera, e.g. the New Grove Dictionary of Opera. The other genres do not have separate categories for librettists, hence I suggest deletion to avoid obfuscation. - Kleinzach 04:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Abberley2 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:22, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly merge per nom.--Smerus 06:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. There is no reason to have a separate category, and there is much overlap. Ssilvers 15:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per nom and Ssilvers. Not a terribly useful category. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 17:04, 5 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). 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. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 14:10, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movies set in Vermont (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Films set in Vermont, convention of Category:Films by location. -- Prove It ^(talk) 00:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and conventions. bibliomaniac15 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree. Rename. Student7 01:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per conventions. Doczilla 07:25, 4 April 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.