< December 16	December 18 >

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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Catholic bishops to Category:Bishops of Old Catholicism

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Reword so it doesn't sound like the category is for Catholic bishops who are old. Snocrates 23:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Bishops of Old Catholic Churches is better, no? Match Old Catholic Church, which in fact covers a group of them. Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to match it to Category:Old Catholicism, but I agree that your proposal works; however, it's possible it might be interpreted as bishops who preach in old buildings of the Catholic Church, but if so, we might have to resign ourselves that it will be misunderstood by some. Snocrates 00:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. Wizardman 05:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian Church - Synod of Saint Timothy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Is empty except for a user page. Snocrates 23:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I suspect there's been an AfD here! Johnbod (talk) 09:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:50, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ISKCON to Category:International Society for Krishna Consciousness

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and to match main article International Society for Krishna Consciousness. Snocrates 23:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:33, 25 December 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 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 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 debate was merge. Kbdank71 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:AIC to Category:African Initiated Churches

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Categories refer to the same thing and all but one of the articles in abbreviated category is also in the other category. Snocrates 23:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Johnbod (talk) 13:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files by User:Pvasiliadis from el.wikipedia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete: editors are more than welcome to link to their contributions from userpages, but articles/images should not be categorised by creator/uploader. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there any Wikipedia decision on that or is it a personal point of view? -- pvasiliadis  00:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• All freely licensed content added to Wikipedia may eventually become a collaboration. This is more often the case with articles, diagrams and maps, but holds true for photographs as well. To me, it doesn't seem appropriate or practical to categorize anything by contributor; people who want to track or showcase their contributions can do so with pages in their userspace. Categories similar to this have been deleted in the past here, here, and here. It should be noted that Commons does allow this use of categories (commons:category:User galleries), and that we have a few similar cats here on Wikipedia in Category:User-created images. ×Meegs 11:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:22, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Reformation to Category:Protestant Reformation

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Resolve ambiguous name to match main article Protestant Reformation. Snocrates 22:59, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:51, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Local Church to Category:Local Church movement

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Resolve ambiguous name. Snocrates 22:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• REname but to Category:Local churches (movement). This will match the main article which is Local churches. Local Church is a sort of disambiguation page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 23 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Foursquare Gospel Members to Category:Members of the International Church of the Foursquare Gospel

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use full name of organization; parent is Category:International Church of the Foursquare Gospel. Snocrates 22:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 13:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unneeded religion category, not defining and not necessarily sourced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:52, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Latter Rain Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No contents apart from Latter Rain Movement. Snocrates 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. (I presume that's the request.) Closing admin should be sure to add the parent cats as categories for the article. Cgingold (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the proposal was to delete. Snocrates 05:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:21, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bible Students to Category:Bible Student movement

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Resolve ambiguous name. Main article is at Bible Student movement and category includes institutions and organizations as well as individuals. Snocrates 22:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:54, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Left Behind to Category:Left Behind series

Category:Characters in Left Behind to Category:Characters in the Left Behind series

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Main article is Left Behind (series), not Left Behind. Included articles relate to the entire series, not just the first book/movie of the series. Snocrates 22:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 22:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity, consistency. Doczilla (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - agreed more clarity :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Obviously we will need to reassess the need for both of these categories after the Rapture. Cgingold (talk) 05:59, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Songs with apocalyptic references to Category:Songs with apocalyptic themes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change from category that would not necessarily be defining for a song to a category that would be. There are hundreds of Christian hymns that refer to the Second Coming of Jesus and its associated apocalypse, but most would not be said to have an "apocalyptic theme". Only those whose overriding theme involves apocalypse should be included here. This appears to be how category has been applied. Snocrates 22:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete subjective category altogether. Doczilla (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doczilla beat me to it. Otto4711 (talk) 13:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doczilla also beat me to it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify I think a reasonable list or article could be created about this topic, but I suspect that AFD will delete it unless its first appearance as an article is very well developed. I wish there was more tolerance for these wiki-developed lists, as I think people find them interesting and useful. I wish there was some place where this information could find a home in the Wikipedia landscape, however a category is definitely not the right home. --☑ SamuelWantman 09:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify - the problem with these song categories is that there are so many songs out there that they will make a very unweildy category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and don't listify. A subjective category would become a subjective list, and wikipedia has too many of those already. Quale (talk) 05:07, 24 December 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 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 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 debate was relisted on dec 26. Kbdank71 16:16, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:KT boundary to Category:Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As a subcategory of Category:Extinction events, category should be for the event, not the geological evidence of the event. Compare Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event and K–T boundary. Snocrates 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the KT boundary is not equivalent to the extinction event. It might need recategorizing. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point. The KT boundary is one of the geological evidences of the extinction event. The category has a parent category which classifies according to extinction events, and articles about the KT boundary could be included in a category about the extinction event. I considered creating Category:Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event and making Category:KT boundary a subcategory of it, but that seemed like overcategorization to me. Snocrates 23:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The K–T boundary article itself would not fit into the renamed category. The boundary between two geologic periods is not necessarily an extinction event, as I understand it. Currently, this category serves as repository for events occuring around the KT boundary in time. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article would not fit. From the article Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event: "It is widely known as the K–T extinction event and is associated with a geological signature, usually a thin band dated to that time and found in various parts of the world, known as the K–T boundary." The KT boundary is clearly linked to the extinction event and would fit nicely in the category. Snocrates 06:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose actually "KT boundary" is the name most used in English for this. Some abbreviations are not expanded when they are the most understood. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:58, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stampedes to Category:Human stampedes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To make it clear that this does not include incidents of animal stampedes of either the disaster or "fun" varieties. Its parent is Category:Man-made disasters. Snocrates 22:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom Johnbod (talk) 22:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:59, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the LTTE to Category:Terrorist attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Parent is Category:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. Snocrates 22:01, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please wait a bit. We just had a huge discussion about merging the related articles Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sri_Lanka_Reconciliation/archive_4#List_of_terrorist_attacks_attributed_to_the_LTTE_.28merge.29, so it might make sense to rename it to "Attacks attributed to the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam". — Sebastian 02:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting "terrorist" is probably a separate issue that can be addressed in a future CFD. This one will merely expand the abbreviation. Snocrates 07:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just wanted to avoid having to run AWB on 36 articles twice, but that's not an important consideration. I posted a link to this page on WT:SLR, so we should be fine. — Sebastian 00:04, 23 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 16:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:McDonald's TV campaigns and slogans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Advertising slogans

Nominator's rationale: Category populated with only one entry. Gilliam (talk) 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - "I'm deletin' it" could be the next tag line. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lehi to Category:Lehi (group)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Main article is at Lehi (group). Lehi is a disambiguated term. Snocrates 21:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• OK. —Ashley Y 23:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Battles of the Sudanese Mahdist revolt to Category:Battles of the Mahdist War

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Parent category is Category:Mahdist War and main article is at Mahdist War. Rename for consistency. Snocrates 21:51, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom , and for NPOV (no doubt called the War of National Liberation etc locally) Johnbod (talk) 13:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:00, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was relisted on dec 26. Kbdank71 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ruhleben P.O.W. Camp to Category:Ruhleben prisoner of war camp

Category:POW at Ruhleben to Category:Prisoners at Ruhleben prisoner of war camp

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Parent category is Category:Prisoner of war camps not Category:P.O.W. camps or Category:POW camps. Not sure if name of camp is a proper noun and should be capitalized; I've opted for not, but it probably could go the other way. Snocrates 21:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both - Overcategorization. No other WWI POW camps have categories, and no other WWI POWs are categorized by camp. The names are already listed in the main article. I don't see this as sufficiently noteworthy to justify categories. Cgingold (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both POWs shouldn't be categorized by camp, many no doubt had tenures at various way-point camps as well as the camp in which the majority of their detention occurred. For the camp itself, perhaps a conglomeration of WWI camps, but not each individually. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as "P.O.W.". While the expansion of the name is sensible, there is no real consistency across the sub-categories right now (e.g. Category:Japanese POW and internment camps. etc.) As it stands it matches the name of the relevant article. Personally I don't have a particular problem with it not matching, but if we are going to tidy one up then all should be done, and that includes the main article as well. (There are 100s of other POW camp categories - hopefully we'll get some more WW1 camp articles added to WP in due course, the Ottoman ones in particular. However Ruleben really warrants its own category as it was most unusual, in that it held a large number of notable civilian internees.) Ephebi (talk) 22:15, 22 December 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 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 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 debate was relisted on dec 26. Kbdank71 16:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Escapees to Category:Prison escapees or Category:To be determined by consensus

Category:Fictional escapees to Category:Fictional prison escapees to Category:To be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is a little vague. I realise the category includes people who have escaped from POW or penal colonies as well as prisons, but "prison escapees" seems to me to be a generic enough name. Main article is at Prison escape. Perhaps someone else might have a suggestion for an alternative. Snocrates 21:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "Escaped captives" maybe? Although that might be taken to cover slaves. The POWs have a sub-category, so maybe it is clear enough. Johnbod (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the POWs are already covered; is there a meaningful difference between jail & prison for this? if not then the nom's "Prison escapees" can cover those; others who escape from other confinement (concentration or death camps? the Warsaw Ghetto?, others can be left at the highest level "Escapees" under which escaped slaves, and escaped kidnapped victims can be placed - maybe even draft evaders/deserters, defectors, and others who feel that they have escaped something. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 16:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American captives in Bagram to Category:Bagram Theater Detention Facility detainees

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous because it could be interpreted that the captives are Americans. Use full name of detention facility as at Bagram Theater Detention Facility; "Bagram" is ambiguous. Since the Bagram Theater Detention Facility is on a U.S. Air Force base, they are all being detained by the United States and I don't think it's necessary to state that again in the category name. Snocrates 21:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; the wording seems to suggest that the Americans are the captives not captors here, surely an error. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:08, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was merge both into Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp. Kbdank71 16:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Guantanamo Bay prisoners to Category:Guantanamo Bay detainees

Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Prisoners" category seems to be the beginnings of a reproduction of the "detainees" category. No definitions exist that would indicate there is a difference in the categories. However, "detainees" category is older and is far more comprehensive. Snocrates 21:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Isn't this an ambiguous category? Is it open to everyone who was ever detained there or is this about detainees for a specific violation? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which one? As far as I can tell, the "detainees" category is open to anyone ever detained there. I can't see any difference in application between the two categories. Snocrates 22:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So there is no intention to limit this to 9/11 and related individuals. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware that people were detained at Guantanamo Bay prior to 9/11. Snocrates 01:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, there has been a jail on the base all along. However after 9/11 the Guantanamo Bay detention camp was established. This article discusses the fact that there are at least two prisons, but I think both are the ones intended for the content of this category. With the current focus, it is impossible to find online articles about the prison from before 9/11. Maybe Category:Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainees is the right rename for both categories since it includes the specific facility? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:57, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree that that is a better proposal; to rename "detainees" to that and merge "prisoners" into it. Snocrates 21:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:People held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp to avoid the POV label of what their status is; its where they are that is notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can support that to reach consensus on this. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. Snocrates 07:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't this actually be Category:People held at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 22 December 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 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 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 debate was upmerge. Kbdank71 16:07, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Elder Scrolls locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: With recent merges and deletions, this category is now too small to be useful. Upmerge. Pagrashtak 17:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:09, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was upmerge. Kbdank71 16:06, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Elder Scrolls races (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Races in The Elder Scrolls are now found in one article—Races of The Elder Scrolls. There is no longer a need for the category. Upmerge. Pagrashtak 17:12, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:10, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was Rename all, to format Category:Foo articles needing a taxobox. JERRY ^talk _contribs 13:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Animal articles without taxoboxes to Category:Animal articles needing a taxobox

Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing taxoboxes to Category:Amphibian and reptile articles needing a taxobox

Category:Plant articles without taxoboxes to Category:Plant articles needing a taxobox

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This CFD is a effectively reversing part of a previous CfD. A deletion review described many reasons why the change is inappropriate for taxoboxes. Articles listed in the above categories need taxoboxes, they aren't "without" them. Per the DR, the article on Fish is without a taxobox, but doesn't need one. Justin ^chat 16:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom & my comments at DR Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Animal taxonomic articles without taxoboxes, et al. (Changed my mind; see below.) We can avoid the conflict by making the article label about the articles which definitely want taxoboxes. Regardless, I'd keep the word "without" (and extend it to other maintenance categories, but that's a discussion for another day), and definitely keep the plural on "taxoboxes" ("articles" need "taxoboxes"; "an article" needs "a taxobox").--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:23, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why there's a conflict at all. Taxonomic articles need taxoboxes. Non-taxonomic articles don't. So the only articles in a category called "Animal articles needing a taxobox" are taxonomic articles. I'm assuming you want to see some level of conformity (don't we all), but conformity shouldn't take precedence over common sense. Justin ^chat 05:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone on Wikipedia should be defining needs. "Without" doesn't have that stigma. Just my opinion, though. (Actually, now that I think about it, why do these infoboxes have a special name of "taxoboxes" anyway? There aren't any "alboboxes" for albums or "Soxoboxes" for Red Sox articles. Wouldn't this be better as Category:Animal articles without infoboxes? Just a thought.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because ((taxobox)) is the name of the template, and it is specifically for placement on pages about a formally-recognized biological taxon; it is also a uniform name and template across wikipedias in multiple languages. When baseball teams begin using Latin names regulated internationally by a Code of Nomenclature, and have a uniform infobox across multiple wikipedia, they too might start using a special box. For now, they don't. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:00, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, I propose we rename Red Sox infoboxes to "Soxoboxes" immediately! Sheep81 (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, that's the wrong question. The correct question is: Why aren't all infoboxes called "taxobox" any more? "Taxobox" is the original term; see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:List of infoboxes/Archive 1#Suggestions for renaming page: infobox, factbox, statbox. -- Eugène van der Pijll (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all - per nom to form Category:xxxx articles needing a taxobox or Category:xxxx articles needing a infobox. these should never have changed; the debate was inconclusive with only "one" voting/argueing for the naming that was eventually used - very, very poor. In fact the level of editor's voting was so low it is extraordinary that this just went through, even though I voted for the rename as originally proposed. There are many other categories needing change back too. Being without a box doen't mean it needs one and having one doesn't mean it doesn't need one. As I said; very, very poor. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 09:24, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to Category:Foo articles without infoboxes per reasoning by Mike. --Kbdank71 15:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to Category:Foo articles without infoboxes. Yeah, after seeing Kbdank endorse this line of reasoning, I'm going to switch to that. I just don't buy the need to call these things anything but infoboxes, at least in the category names.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this should be posted at the various WikiProjects so the people actually editing these articles can have input. As long as no one considers that canvassing, I'd be happy to do it. However, if I do that, it's unquestionable Mike's suggestion will be roundly defeated. There is a reason the category has a special name. They are infoboxes, but they are special infoboxes. Personally, I think this is a wholly inappropriate place to be suggesting we change the name of something with existing guidelines. For those that have responded to this, would any of you take issue if I let the folks at WP:ANIMAL and WP:PLANTS know of this CfD's existance? Justin ^chat 16:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No - informing relevant projects (in neutral terms) is never canvassing. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special how? Because they deal with taxonomy? One could make the same argument that any infobox is special, and like Mike says above, we don't call them "Soxoboxes". I'm pretty sure nobody working on these articles would look at Category:Foo articles without infoboxes and say, "Really? Ok then, let's add a Soxobox right here" in a fit of confusion. I might be persuaded to go for something like Category:Foo articles without taxonomic infoboxes if you think people would be confused, but like I said, I don't think that's really necessary. --Kbdank71 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Special, because by the consensus of the Wikipedia community (for some years now) they are required for articles on specific taxonomic clades. Is there a standing guideline or consensus that specific Redsox articles require a very specific infobox? The argument here seems to be "they aren't special so let's make them ambiguous". That simply doesn't make any sense. Category:Animal articles without infoboxes is entirely ambiguous. If we do the rename as you suggest, the article Fish fully qualifies for that category. It's an animal article without a infobox. Of course, it's an animal article that doesn't need an infobox, but by pushing for ambiguity, you are offering up the perfect solution to create more over categorization. Justin ^chat 19:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's just common sense. Of course Fish doesn't need a infobox, taxonomic or otherwise. These categories are not for readers of the encyclopedia, they're for the editors. I like to think our editors have the smarts so that we don't have to hold their hands and spell out everything for them. And if, by chance, you get someone adds Fish to the wrong category, a gentle note on their talk page should suffice, as it would if they added it to any category that isn't appropriate. As for being "special", I still don't see how something being required means it has to have its own name. --Kbdank71 19:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't seem to find the policy which requires we "prove" that a specific infobox can or can't have it's own name. I've presented several arguments for why "need" is more appropriate, and why "without infoboxes" is too ambiguous. Thus far, the responses I've gotten are I don't like it. You both are going to have to do better than that if you expect a change in a widely accepted practice. Justin ^chat 20:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, I think it's just common sense that these categories didn't need to be renamed in the first place. I didn't see anything wrong with the category titles before the initial move. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per my comments earlier in the DR. --Rkitko ^(talk) 20:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - I have made most of these comments elsewhere, but they don't seem to have been read or addressed by the current round of discussion.

      The TOL projects have all agreed that taxa should have taxoboxes to uniformly coordinate information about scientific names, classification, and scientific synonyms. Names of taxa are regulated and made uniform internationally by the various Codes of Nomenclature. This information helps biologists keep track of which organism is which, and is consistent worldwide and between languages. The taxobox presents this information, and is therefore useful even if the reader does not speak English. Even the coding was created to be consistent between wikipedias, so that sharing of taxobox information was the same across different languages, and consistent with Wikispecies.

      The "needs taxobox" categories were created by the TOL projects to keep track of those articles which needed to have the taxobox added. However, the taxoboxes were recently renamed out of process, and the new "without" name is wholly inappropriate for TOL articles. Most articles on a species or larger taxonomic group of organisms have a taxobox, but there are many, many organism articles that have no taxobox and shouldn't, in part because there are many organism articles that aren't taxa. For example, the Fish article has no taxobox, but it should not have a Taxobox because it is not a taxon. It could conceivably end up with an infobox from some other project, but it should not have a taxobox. The same is true of Bryophyte, Algae, Marine mammal, and countless other organism articles. These pages are not taxa, and so do not have a Taxobox as a result of not being taxa. Further, there are many articles within the scope of the TOL projects that are not about organisms at all, such as Seed, Systematics, and Arthur Cronquist. These articles should also not receieve taxoboxes, despite being "Plants" articles, and this is uniformly agreed.

      However, there is also a desire on the part of all the various TOL groups to include taxoboxes on articles that are about taxa (formally recognized groups), as well as infoboxes on articles about important strains and cultivars. When these pages lack such a box, it is important that they receive one (for reasons as outlined above), and the categories (as noted above) were created for just this purpose.

      Unfortunately, with the newly revised category names (e.g. Category:Plant articles without taxoboxes), the category name is nonsensical and useless to the project using it. There are many, many articles within the scope of WP:PLANTS that have no taxobox and never will. The plant physiology article will not (and should not) have a taxobox; it is a discipline, not a taxon. Likewise, the Leaf article should not have a taxobox, and neither should Algae, Bryophyte, Fish, etc. For all the TOL Wikiprojects, there is a clearly defined, and very important, distinction between articles that should have taxoboxes and articles that should not have taxoboxes. Whether an article is simply without such a taxobox is irrelevant and useless information. What is important is locating the articles that need such a box. Keeping this distinction in the name is necessary. The TOL projects together potentially encompass more than a million articles. The categories are there to be used by the TOL projects, and so the category names should be clear and precise, reducing the potential for confusion about what is to be included. They should not simply be named so as to satisfy some abstract desire for uniformity. These categories serve a practical function, and the name should reflect that function. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. "needing" is the operative word here --Melburnian (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - I think the 'needing' bit is rather essential to the intended meaning DJLayton4 (talk) 02:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - I agree with the previous two posts.--Curtis Clark (talk) 06:27, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment whatever they are renamed to, they should be clear that they only belong on talk pages as an internal reference. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC) Now all are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination - Distinction should be drawn between "without" and "needing". Also, the categories should specifically refer to taxoboxes, since that is what the articles in question need. There are other infoboxes besides taxoboxes that could conceivably be put on many ToL articles, but that's not what the category is referring to. Sheep81 (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 debate was relisted on dec 26. Kbdank71 16:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:US waste legislation to Category:United States waste law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. US -> United States. It's general legal issues, not just legislation.—Markles 16:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is better for this category, but there are entire trees of "legislation" -- are you planning to go through all the legislation/statutory law trees? or simply to recat this one into Category:Law by issue? (abandoning Category:Waste legislation and Category:United States federal environmental legislation? Because that's not quite satisfactory either, since, in fact, of the 19 articles in this category, 9 are specific statutes or articles about types of statutes. Frankly I'd prefer we look at all the categories and clean them up and apply a consistent approach, so if this is the first step in a comprehensive plan I'm on board. But there needs to be a plan for dealing with the statutes & case law & regulations & regulators & so on. --Lquilter (talk) 17:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - nope, no bigger plan. I'm often patrolling the legislation categories and I found this one. At first I was just going to change the US to United States. Then I noticed that this clearly wasn't legislation. It should change for now because the name is incorrect - it is not legislation. After that… sure — let's get a better plan going.—Markles 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not to try to cut out the CFD process, but if this category is ultimately going to get recreated as a subcategory of Category:United States waste law, then maybe you can just create USwl and subcat this one under it, and clean up the articles. (I'll help.) --Lquilter (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • It still needs US changed to United States either way.—Markles 23:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've now created Category:United States waste law, and made Category:US waste legislation a subcat. It still needs the US->United States change.—Markles 15:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States environmental legislation. The problem with "waste" is that as a legal concept it doesn't mean "rubbish" it usually refers to current possessors not maintaining a long-lived property before it transfers to the future owners. Like a life tenant of a house failing to keep it in good repair during the life tenancy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC) While we have waste talking about rubbish, we have Waste (law) talking about the legal concept I have described, so a category about waste law seems to implicate that usage. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Environmental legislation is too broad; it covers air, water, wildlife, endangered species, mining reclamation, leaking underground storage tanks, and a host of other things. Since this is a national category that will include all federal, state, interstate, and local, that's way too big & will need subdivision. Waste management is the common term for recycling, bottle bills, solid waste management, and so on. Waste seems like a reasonable shorthand, but I'm happy to go with waste management. --Lquilter (talk) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waste management is preferred. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:16, 21 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:24, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional video weblogs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The defintion of "fictional video weblog" is not clear to me. So far, this category contains only 1 item. Magioladitis (talk) 11:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete vague, underpopulated category. Doczilla (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:16, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Ann Arbor to Category:People from Ann Arbor, Michigan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. New name will be helpful for non-Americans. I know that there is a famous university in Ann Arbor. Category:People from Ann Arbor, Michigan will be more appropriate. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Unnecessary, as there is only one notable place with this name. Badagnani (talk) 07:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Parent category is Category:Ann Arbor, Michigan and main article is at Ann Arbor, Michigan. Rename for consistency. Snocrates 07:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency --Pparazorback (talk) 19:50, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:17, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Ypsilanti to Category:People from Ypsilanti, Michigan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Non-Americans like me don't know where Ypsilanti is. New name will be helpful for non-Americans. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename. Unnecessary, as there is only one notable place with this name. Badagnani (talk) 07:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Parent category is Category:Ypsilanti, Michigan and relevant articles are at Ypsilanti, Michigan and Ypsilanti Township, Michigan. Rename for consistency. Snocrates 07:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Perhaps some of the 320 residents of Ypsilanti, ND may assert that they are somewhat a notable town somehow. --Pparazorback (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename just to avoid any possible association with a historical Greek family. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 12:33, 21 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. There is precedent to disambiguate town categories when there is more than one town sharing a name. Kbdank71 15:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Cincinnati to Category:People from Cincinnati, Ohio

Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are other cities with similar names. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose rename - There is only one other Cincinnati besides the one in Ohio: a tiny town in Iowa with approximately 400 inhabitants. Badagnani (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Parent category is Category:Cincinnati, Ohio and main article is at Cincinnati, Ohio. Rename for consistency. Snocrates 07:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Many to most of the existing subcategories use "Cincinnati." See Category:History of Cincinnati, Category:Media in Cincinnati, Category:Religion in Cincinnati, etc. In addition this kind of thing would not happen with towns of Britain or other nations. Category:People from Durham is not concerned about people from Durham, North Carolina even though Durham, North Carolina is a larger city with many notable natives.--T. Anthony (talk) 10:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am open to renaming Cincinnati, Ohio to Cincinnati while retaining the link to the disambig. This would be similar to Derby, Dunedin, Galway, Oviedo, York, and other cities smaller than Cincinnati.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you have also not been following the discussions on place names. It is not likely that your suggested rename of the main article would get consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change and is not as universal as you imply. I'm not going into much more detail because it's Christmas, but it's not even true that large cities have to have the state listed. In academia it's not necessary if the city is very large or the only noteworthy place with the name. Even here see Chicago or for numerous large cities outside North America. (Ghent, Tandil, Wellington, etc)--T. Anthony (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom & ample precedent. For whatever reason, quite large US cities are City, State where itsy bitsy non-US cities are just plain old city. The cats should follow the articles, which means renaming all those identifed by T. Anthony. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So we should remain illogical, and potentially biased, for consistency? If so what about all the other subcats of Cincinnati or Amarillo or Denver or New Orleans or San Diego?--T. Anthony (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The distinction is not necessary. Also, this should be dealt with alongside any other Cincinatti categories, not on its own. --129.98.215.247 (talk) 07:06, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • And ignore precedent? The name needs to match the name of the parent category. If the others need renaming, then so be it. The fact that the other have not been nominated yet is not a reason to not rename this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:40, 25 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dairy Queen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article besides the main article so a category is not needed at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete w/o prejudice to future re-creation if warranted. Snocrates 07:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete underpopulated category. Doczilla (talk) 09:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:19, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename to Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 characters and Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 films.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:MST3K characters to Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 characters

Category:MST3K movies to Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 movies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and to match parent Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 and main article Mystery Science Theater 3000. Abbreviation is something only fans would likely be familiar with. Snocrates 01:14, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Name isn't really that long and will be more readable. Recury (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Doczilla (talk) 09:05, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This MSTie concurs — rename per nom. We're a general encyclopedia. One question: as long as we're changing the name, should we use "movies", or should we use the WP-standard "films"? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, except Category:Mystery Science Theater 3000 films per Jeff Q. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:23, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ACWW to Category:Associated Country Women of the World

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and to match main article Associated Country Women of the World. Snocrates 00:42, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete in the absence of sourcing in any of the constituent articles that there is any affiliation amongst these different organizations. Even if such sourcing is forthcoming, still delete as a list of a handful of constituent organizations would in no way overwhelm the two-sentence lead article. Otto4711 (talk) 04:07, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is overcategorization by relationship -- in this case, membership in or relationship to an organization. --Lquilter (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 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 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 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 debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:18, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Microsoft APIs to Category:Microsoft application programming interfaces

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT. Snocrates 00:36, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: I created this category almost two years ago, this is a good rename. -/- Warren 10:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:21, 20 December 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 category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.