< November 15	November 17 >

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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Six Flags parks and attractions to Category:Six Flags

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No reason for this extra level. All of the roller coasters are being moved into a specific sub category. What's left here and in the parent are so few that we don't need two categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:08, 18 November 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:Department of Canadian Heritage. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Heritage Canada to Category:Canadian Heritage

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Heritage Canada and Canadian Heritage are, confusingly, two different things. The Heritage Canada article is about a non-governmental charitable foundation. The cultural department whose agencies are being categorized is in fact called Department of Canadian Heritage. So Category:Canadian Heritage would be more accurate.-- Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Department of Canadian Heritage, to match main article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine by me, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 17 November 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:The Big O media. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC) Category:Screenshots of The Big O to Category:The Big O media[reply]

More inclusive name. This way, everything from screen shots, covers and artwork from the series can be categorized.Nohansen 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Though I agree with that idea, it isn't a speediable change, so should be in the main list. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved from speedy.---- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:The Big O images - "Media" is an ambiguous name, as it could mean books or magazines written about the series. In line with Category:Television images (whose subcat, Category:Screenshots of television, could do with some standardization). Otto4711 (talk) 15:12, 17 November 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 as nominated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Canadian city councillors to Category:Canadian municipal councillors
• Category:Canadian town councillors to Category:Canadian municipal councillors
• Category:Alberta city councillors to Category:Alberta municipal councillors
• Category:British Columbia city councillors to Category:British Columbia municipal councillors
• Category:Manitoba city councillors to Category:Manitoba municipal councillors
• Category:Ontario city councillors to Category:Ontario municipal councillors
• Category:Quebec city councillors to Category:Quebec municipal councillors
• Category:Saskatchewan city councillors to Category:Saskatchewan municipal councillors

More inclusive name for the categories. The ultimate reason why this is necessary is revealed by the fact that a capital C is the only thing currently distinguishing the category for city councillors in the province of Quebec from the category for city councillors in Quebec City. Bearcat 11:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As above, though I agree with that idea, it isn't a speediable change, so should be in the main list. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason it's even getting listed anywhere is that I haven't been able to boot into my Windows partition for about six weeks now, so I can't do an AWB run by myself. It'd have been done over a month ago if I could have. Try as I might, I just can't make myself see it as a change that requires any kind of debate. Bearcat 09:13, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there probably won't be any objection to it, but it's not covered by any of the types of change which can be speedied (as listed above) - it is possible that someone would be able to think of a reason to keep city and town categories separate. Grutness...wha? 22:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Moved from speedy.---- Mike Selinker (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per nom. (The double-l spelling of "councillor" is correct in Canadian spelling and should be retained.) Snocrates (talk) 02:53, 17 November 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 No consensus to rename this specific category. - The broader issue seems to be defining the difference between "academic" and "scholar" as used in these category sets (and how all the categories are subcategorised). Let's figure out the inclusion criteria before starting merges/renames. (Incidentally, I presume that the "mergeto/mergefrom" template set is inappropriate for categories. Merges are typically nominated for discussion on CfD.) I hope that closure of this CFD doesn't stop the broader discussion being continued on a talk page "somewhere". - jc37 13:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Journalism academics to Category:Journalism scholars

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Like legal scholars, many journalism scholars are not in the academy, or only teach as adjuncts. Of the 10 scholars in the category, about half are not tenure-track academics, but either adjuncted or had administrative positions at journalism "centers" at universities. They are certainly "journalism scholars" and there is no reason to distinguish between the full-time tenure-track academics and those who have done scholarship through other types of positions. ---- Lquilter (talk) 21:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to the more grammatical form Category:Scholars of journalism, as used by many scholar categories. Johnbod (talk) 00:20, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only found two "scholars of" formulas: Scholars of Marxism and Scholars of antisemitism. I'm not sure the more explicit formulation is needed here -- "Journalism scholars" seems pretty clear -- but I don't object if consensus goes that way. --Lquilter (talk) 04:29, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are a variety of formulae: Category:Talmudists, Category:Scholars of Marxism, Category:Biblical scholars and some rather ambiguous ones - Category:Feminist scholars is I suppose not "Scholars of Feminism", nor Category:Middle East scholars (only 2 members) only for people from the Middle east. It's not about clarity, but grammar. Category:International relations scholars and Category:African American studies scholars are I think the only "non-proper noun+scholar" combos at present, & they should be changed too, to "Scholars of...". Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the latter two categories you mention, but not on the reason1 The only reason we ought to care about the grammar in this instance I think is only to aid clarity. (Intl relations scholars is not actually that confusing but it's funny....) -- Lquilter

• Rename per Johnbod's formulation. While for Biblical scholars (presumably those scholars are not actually in the Bible at least not the one I read in Sunday School), and probably the cat in question, little ambiguity will arise, we can standardize these so that for the categories where adjective-scholars leaves ambiguity we resolve the ambiguity by the title. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose - I noticed that Lquilter has posted a template on the Category:Academics by subject page suggesting that the entire category tree be merged into Category:Scholars by subject. I have to say that I am very concerned about the idea of erasing all distinctions between scholars and academics. Granted they are very similar, and there is, of course, considerable overlap. But, whereas Lquilter has focused on the fact that some of these individuals may not, strictly speaking, be "in the academy" (and I would not include adjuncts in that group), I think there is another issue that has been overlooked thus far in this discussion: while all academics devote at least some of their work hours (in the case of adjuncts, all of their paid work hours) to teaching, unaffiliated scholars have no such requirement, and may well do no teaching whatsoever. So I think it would be a serious mistake to rush headlong into a change of name on this category without taking into consideration the issue I've raised (and possibly others), as well as the implications for the larger category structure. Cgingold (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Responding on Category talk:Scholars by subject. --Lquilter (talk) 12:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is a good reason for having separate category trees for scholars and acdemics, because "academic" is a fairly precise term, defined in the article academic as "a person who works as a researcher (and usually teacher) at a university or similar institution". A scholar may be a person who works alone, without benefit of the structured peer review which distinguishes academia from other types of scholarship.
  In any case, this category looks more like a stalking horse for the whole of Category:Academics by subject. That may be a discussion worth having, but if so, the whole tree should be nominated. In the meantime, the problems of category usage which the nominator identifies should be resolved by removing the administrators from the category, and moving the non-academic scholars to a new Category:Journalism scholars. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is there is usually no crosslinking of any kind between the two trees at present, which is not helpful to readers. In the case of a few areas, like law, journalism & perhaps religion, academics who have never practiced are often at a disadvantage & people cross in & out of academia. Plus fields with many scholars before the expansion of universities are difficult - Darwin cannot be called an academic. Johnbod (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For me, this category is an issue because journalism scholars, like legal scholars, are particularly prone to not being in the academy. There's only ten in the category and I don't see the advantage of splitting them into two (or three) categories. (All of those with "academic administrator" positions are also scholars, so, Category:Journalism scholars and Category:Journalism academics would accurately take care of all ten, I believe.) I suspect that most users would look for these people because of their scholarship, not their teaching or full-time-ness at a university. --Lquilter (talk) 13:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• In reply to Johnbod, surely the simple solution to that problem is that every "foo academics" category should be a subcat of "foo scholars"? You can't be an academic without being a scholar, but not very scholar is an academic, as is illustrated by your example of Darwin. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I posted back on Category talk:Scholars by subject, this is probably the better solution from a purist category perspective. The main problem is that from a functional perspective, the distinction is rather academic (ahem) and most editors appear to ignore it. That doesn't have to be a fatal objection, of course. The other problem is that in some categories (like this one) the distinction is less meaningful than in others, because there are relatively few people in either category and/or there is a significant overlap between non-academic scholars and academic scholars. A solution for these categories would be something like "Category:Journalism scholars and academics" or "Category:Legal scholars and academics" or "Category:Women's studies scholars and academics". --Lquilter (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm glad to see someone noticed that notice! Please notice this as well: I'm not proposing the whole tree at CFD because it needs much more discussion and thought; hence, I posted the note at the category for discussion there. (That's procedure, no?) I'm looking at individual categories right now and trying to make them make sense. This one was clearly problematic for the reasons described above, as was "Category:Legal academics" (now Category:Legal scholars) a week ago. It would be great to have discussion of the scholars/academics issue, and the distinction is relevant to this CFD, but let's not let the numerous significant issues with the broader category trees overwhelm the issues with this particular topic right now. (Ahem; I think of this cat nom is not so much a "stalking horse" as cleaning up the two existing category trees so that better discussion can be had about them.) --Lquilter (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I had the very same idea for renaming all of the subcategories to variants of Category:Xxxx scholars and academics, though I'm not sure it would work well for those fields with longer names. But I do think this is something we should give very serious consideration to. Cgingold (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that's the preferred solution for this category, Category:Journalism academics? Or can Category:Journalism scholars work for this category? (with the understanding, of course, that it's not intended to be (and can't serve as) a precedent for all the other fields of scholars or academics) --Lquilter (talk) 00:46, 20 November 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only one item in the category which is currently up for deletion as well. -- Axem Titanium (talk) 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I object. I believe spoiler warnings are necessary. It doesn't say that the reader is stupid or anything and those Wikipedia straw polls have proven that users want to keep them. I've been looking for them to use forever and I can't find them! They're quite important. Keep the category, and keep the spoiler templates! ForestAngel (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't see your Overturn vote at the Template:Spoiler deletion review.

You don't need a template. Plain text spoiler notice tags still work. Milo 09:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment All I've ever seen at the DRV, RFC, TFDs on spoilers is what should amount to no-consensus. (except for early ones, which were all keep). 132.205.44.5 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with rename to Category:Spoiler notice templates It's a notice, not a warning - there is no danger. Milo 09:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Postpone until the discussions at WP:DRV and WP:TfD are completed. --Farix (Talk) 13:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Postpone until the relevant discussions are over. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 04:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if TfD is closed as delete (which seems very likely, atm). (DRV concluded as Endorse deletion). ++Arx Fortis (talk) 16:15, 23 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Colossus class battleships to Category:Colossus class battleships (1910)

Nominator's rationale: There were two Colossus classes: one in 1910 and one in 1882. There is already a Category:Colossus class battleships (1882); this one needs to be renamed to make the difference between the two clear. This is a common type of rename, and there are several examples of identically named class categories disambiguated by year in use already. -- TomTheHand (talk) 18:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per very clear nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Rename for clarity Travtim^(Talk) 20:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• RenameShouldn't be an issue.-- Balloonman (talk) 20:45, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 18 November 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 speedy delete Category:Interchanges of Japan per CSD C1 (category that is empty for 4+ days) and delete Category:Interchanges as overcategorisation (contains only one article that already appears in Category:Named interchanges). – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Interchanges of Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty categories. Sushiya 15:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as empty Travtim^(Talk) 20:32, 16 November 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/rename as nominated. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Amphibious assault ships to Category:Amphibious warfare vessels

Suggest renaming:

• Category:United States Navy amphibious assault ships to Category:United States Navy amphibious warfare vessels
• Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships to Category:World War II amphibious warfare vessels
• Category:World War II amphibious warfare ships of the United States to Category:World War II amphibious warfare vessels of the United States
• Category:Amphibious assault ship classes to Category:Amphibious warfare vessel classes
• Category:Royal Navy amphibious warfare ships to Category:Royal Navy amphibious warfare vessels

Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this merge is to standardize naming of categories for amphibious warfare vessels, which are kind of a mess now. The change from "amphibious assault" to "amphibious warfare" is because "amphibious assault ship" is a fairly specific term, and does not reflect how the categories are actually used. They are being used to categorize a variety of ships involved in amphibious warfare. The change from "ships" to "vessels" is intended to allow the categories to be used for vessels that aren't really ships. TomTheHand 15:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Note that nominator proposed these changes at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ships#Amphibious assault ships vs. amphibious warfare vessels where there was no real resistance. Maralia 15:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Gatoclass 15:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I see no reason why these changes would not be beneficial.-MBK004 16:39, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per nom. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:22, 21 November 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 double merge, as suggested by Bencherlite. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Steamboat Companies in Pacific Northwest to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale:: Merge this overly-narrow, orphaned category to somewhere, but I don't know where. Any ideas? (all three companies were based in Oregon). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS That's the end of today's orphaned categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Double merge to Category:Transportation companies of the United States and Category:Companies based in Oregon. Bencherlite^Talk 15:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that sounds good to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:18, 16 November 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 - all the category's members are already in Category:Paddle steamers except Ilwaco Railway and Navigation Company (which probably shouldn't be in this category either). The members are: two related boats - one was built from the other - which link to each other in their articles; Two lists of boats - one which is under Category:Paddle steamers of British Columbia (a subcat of Category:Paddle steamers); and one which is directly under Category:Paddle steamers. As the two latter examples would appear to show, "by geographic location" is probably better suited to lists. - jc37 13:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Steamboats in Pacific Northwest to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Merge this overly-narrow orphaned category to somewhere, but I don't know where. Category:Paddle steamers isn't quite accurate, and Category: Steamships seems too broad. Any ideas? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Steamships as that's full of individual articles about steamboats / steamships. If somebody wants to create "Steamships by country" structure (or whatever the appropriate preposition is ("by", "of" or "from", I can never remember the conventions...)), fine; until then, the head category is probably sufficient. Bencherlite^Talk 15:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a nonstandard category name on several counts. Both articles in the category are, in fact, paddle steamers. Both belong in Category:Paddle steamers and Category:Passenger ships of the United States, which I will take care of now. Maralia 15:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that sounds good to me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maralia's analysis is better than my previous attempt and, now that the articles are appropriately categorised, this category is redundant. Category:Paddle steamers is a sub-cat of Category:Steamships and is more appropriate, looking at the article as a whole - I was misled by the first description in the articles being effectively "it's a steamboat", rather than "it's a paddle steamer"... Bencherlite^Talk 17:43, 16 November 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. A general switch from "United States" to "United States of America" would require discussion at a much more general level than a single CFD nomination. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 22:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gangs in the United States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:Gangs in the United States, to match United States. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:34, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Rename instead United States -> United States of America -- 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This doesn't seem to be the correct forum to debate a widespread change from US to USA. Snocrates (talk) 07:55, 18 November 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 Category:Propaganda phrases to Category:Political slogans. Though it would appear that some should instead be in its subcats: Category:Political catch phrases or Category:American political slogans. (And a few which possibly shouldn't be in any of the cats.) Please feel free to cleanup/sort. - jc37 13:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Propaganda phrases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete, vague and largely POV category. One woman's factual-description of the truth-as-she-sees-it is another's propaganda, and vice-versa. See also Category talk: Propaganda phrases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete easily POV motivated Travtim^(Talk) 20:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Political slogans, after removing a few (eg Home taping is killing music) Johnbod (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Political slogans per Johnbod. A much better solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Political slogans per Johnbod. We got rid of several sub-cats of Category:Propaganda films at the beginning of the year for the same reason (and I just spent a couple of hours doing cleanup there). While we're on the subject, there are a lot of other suspect things that need to be weeded out of Category:Propaganda and its sub-cats. Cgingold (talk) 14:27, 18 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Safety Engineering to Category:Safety engineering

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate, possible speedy (capitalisation error). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, speedy probably. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge Johnbod (talk) 03:34, 17 November 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 as nominated. The taser is only one type of electroshock weapon. While the renaming of Electroshock weapon controversy is outside the scope of this nomination, various factors argue against it. Most notably, the defining element of electroshock weapon controversies is the fact of use of such a device ... it doesn't matter whether the device is a taser or an electric shock prod. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Controversies involving tasers to Category:Electroshock weapon controversies

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match head article Electroshock weapon controversy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I found this category via Special:Uncategorizedcategories, and cat sorted it. I agree with the nominator's rationale that Category:Electroshock weapon controversies is more appropriate. - Mtmelendez ^(Talk) 13:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Created the category was unsure if I shouldve used tasers or electroshock weapons. Kuzwa 14:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • just for future reference, the general principle in naming categories is follow the title of the main article. There are some situations where that doesn't work, but not many, and if there is a main aricle, it's usually best to follow that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Travtim^(Talk) 20:37, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as an Englishman, I have heard the term "taser", but not "electroshock weapons". I assume "taser" is an acronym, not a brand. Certianly there should only be one category. If the article has a differnet name, that should be renamed. Electroshock weapons would make me think of the cattle prods (allegedly) used by certain totalitarian regimes as instruments of torture, but they are somethign quite different. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• agree, WTF is an electrashockothingy? Ephebi (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't rename category; rename main article instead. BrownHairedGirl's reasoning is sound, but in this case, the principle of using the most commonly known name should apply. Every other media refers to them as tasers. We wouldn't change Category:Heroin to Category:Diacetylmorphine for the same reason. Taser is both an acronym and a brand name, but the brand is synonymous with the product in everyday usage. bobanny (talk) 08:48, 21 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Old Forres Sandle Manor Students (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete single-article category rescued from the orphanage,possible hoax. There is no article on the school, and the sole article in the category is Olly Morgan, which not only fails to mention the school, but lists him in the infobox as having attended Millfield School. Neither of the two profiles of him linked from the article mentions Old Forres Sandle Manor, although the school does appear to exist: see http://www.forressandlemanor.com --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - although Google shows no link, it may not be a hoax as the school appears to be a prep school (i.e. education to age 13). Delete because Wikipedia doesn't categorize people by educational establishment at that age. I have readded Category:Old Millfieldians to Olly Morgan's article as multiple sources indicate that he went there (see google search). Bencherlite^Talk 13:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It doesn't make much sense to keep such a category when there's not even an article for the school itself. We may want it someday, but then it should be named to match the format of Category:People by school in England. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:23, 16 November 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 keep. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:01, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Jesuit colleges in India to Category:Jesuit schools in India

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. All these institutions appear to be schools, it's just that some of them are called "foo College", a common naming convention for Jesuit schools. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn (see below). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom; "College" in India can be used in the sense of High School in the US or UK. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom & Carlos. Keep In fact all of these offer degree courses. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for the first time, you are quite right! I should have checked more thoroughly, and have withdrawn the nonination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 18 November 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. While an article about religious views on polygamy would probably be viable, the stance of a religion or a religious organisation on polygamy is not a defining attribute. As hinted at by Carlossuarez46, most religions have dozens or hundreds of similar tenets. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious organizations which tolerate polygamy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is empty except for the subcategory Category:Mormon fundamentalism, which has (some of) the same parent categories as this one. Suggest deleting until needed. Alternatively, can it be populated with anything? Snocrates 11:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not needed, and we don't need to start religion by tenet categories: Category:Religious organziations that forbid consumption of pork, Category:Religious organizations that forbid working on the Sabbath, Category:Religious organizations that require circumcision, Category:Religious organizations that tolerate cremation of the dead, etc.... it gets us nowhere fast. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sulk. I was really hoping that if this one stayed, I could have created Category:Religions which would require me to believe six impossible things before breakfast. It would have been well-populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary categorisation Travtim^(Talk) 20:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm pretty sure we had a very similar set of categories about 10 months ago. Either or both non-defining attribute or POV about what is a defining attribute. (And don't get my started on use of the word "tolerate".) ---- Lquilter (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be thinking of Category:Polygamists - an entire tree -- which poses very different issues. I could have sworn there was an XFD about religions that tolerate polygamy that was most aimed at picking up Mormons & Islam, but I can't find it. --Lquilter (talk) 01:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and populate to Category:Religions that allow polygamy. This would mean that Islam (or certain branches of it) would appear. If a different term were found to include it, Tibetan polyandry might also be included. I suspect that there are other places with polygamy is allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:48, 18 November 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 - "Crime in fiction" is too broad, as noted by Carlossuarez46, below. - jc37 13:11, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Crime in fiction to Category:Crime fiction

Nominator's rationale: Merge, This category only contains Category:Crime fiction . --Eliyak T·C 11:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete while a nuanced distinction could be drawn, there is no apparent attempt to do so, and it probably wouldn't be keepable as many non-"crime fiction" fictional books have some crime happening in them: much of Mark Twain's output and the whole genre of mysteries could be shoehorned into that. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and populate Crime occurs in fiction which is not crime fiction. Quite a few crimes form the basis of non-crime fiction stories, where the consequences of the crime (such as war) is the focus. -- 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Crime fiction" usually refers to "whodunits". This one would include a wide range of thrillers involving murder; historical novels where some one did an act that would now be judged to be criminal; indeed novels of all genres may refer to crime in passing. The category is thus much to wide to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment fictional crimes would not fit under crime fiction. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fictional crimes such as... --129.98.214.103 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of Associazione Culturale Nove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single-article orphaned category. The lone article Jerry Ross (painter) doesn't mention the Associazione Culturale Nove, and there is no article Associazione Culturale Nove. If such an article is written, it's members could be listed in the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:06, 18 November 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 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 by User:Spartaz, procedural close by Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gator Olympians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not entirely sure what this category is intended for, but my best guess so far is that it is intended to include athletes from the Florida Gators who later participate in the olympics. This seems to me to be a vary narrow intersection, with limited possibility for growth (and great potential for category clutter if replicated for other sports clubs); the 5 athletes concerned should be listed in the article Florida Gators . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we don't need to sub categorize people by school+olympic participation. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to nuke this now. It was created by a sock of the indef blocked user WOverstreet. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:56, 17 November 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 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 keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Sheldon to Category:People from Birmingham, England

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, overly narrow division of Category:People from Birmingham, England, with limited potential for growth. Council wards are too small a unit to subdivide the population of English cities; Birmingham has 40 council wards, an creating a category for each of them would merely divide a category of useable size into 40 undersized categories. Additionally, council wards are not stable units, being subject to periodic review by the Boundary Committee for England. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The area has been inhabited since before theDomesday Book - it may be a council ward now but it will not disappear if boundaries are changed. The category member Increase Nowell is simply not from Birmingham - Sheldon had no link to the city in 1590. Any wider geographical category will be inaccurate (either currently or historically).Aatomic1 11:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply the same applies to countless other small geographical divisions of England, and of many other countries. Unless we are going to create thousands of tiny categories of people-by-place-in-England, we have to accept some imprecision. One possible solution is to also categorise the people by whatever county they would have been before the city boundaries were extended to include Sheldon. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Sheldon is bigger than thousands of the categories of people-by-place-in-England that already exist Category:People from London by district;Category:People by city or town in England;Category:People from Greater Manchester. Aatomic1 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Categories exist to aid navigation. Do we really want to start splitting the 390 articles in Category:People from Birmingham, England into 40 subdivisions (one per ward), with an average of 9 articles in each? Categories exist to assist reader navigation, and that only impedes navigation. People move around within cities, so many biographical articles would be categorised under more than one subdivision of Brum, creating category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If you are using the Wikipedia collective we then the answer is yes we do.Category:People by county in New York. Aatomic1 16:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad comparison. Birmingham has a population of 1 million in 100 square miles, but New York state has 19 million people over 54,000 square miles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sheldon was (I think) an ancient parish, with well-defined boundaries, as were Yardley, Edgbaston and Harborne. Erdington, Ward End, Moseley, and Selly Oak (though not parishes) were historical administrative entities with known boundaries. The problem is that these have been amalgamated into the City of Birmingham, becoming mere wards. The need for wards to have similar electorates, means that their boundaries are altered periodically. This measn tha that the extent of a category based on ward boundaries is potentially unstable, while a category based on historical (i.e. obsolete) boundaries is also unsatisfactory. On the other hand, such historical adminstrative entities continue to exist as distinct communities, often based on these obsolete boundaries. Nevertheless, there are difficulties: Perry Barr is used for places are are near Perry Barr Station, but in fact not within the historic boundary of Perry Barr. I cannot offer a satisfactory solution to his problem; my reaction is thus to Leave as it is. Such categories (if retained) should be subcategories of "people form Birmingham". Peterkingiron (talk) 00:08, 19 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Particle in a box to Category:Quantum models

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge two-article category with little scope for expansion. (rescued from the orphanage). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge inclusion in the larger category is sufficient, cannot be expected to become populated as a separate category Travtim^(Talk) 20:46, 16 November 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 Category:Theorem provers to Category:Theorem proving software systems. "Automated" would seem to refer to the task or process, not to the software itself. And in looking over the category members, it's clear that these are "software systems". (Which should also help give the category a bit more clarity.) - jc37 13:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Theorem provers to Category:Theorem proving software

Nominator's rationale: Most categories used for software have either "software" or "(software)" as part of the name. Thus quickly identified in lists of subcategories and supporting "Category:software" searches. tooold 08:57, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support That is clearly the case Travtim^(Talk) 20:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Just noticed - the main article is Automated theorem proving thus a better rename would be to "Automated theorem proving software". tooold (talk) 23:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question aren't the words "automated" and "software" largely redundant? Not all software is automated, but I don't see how theorem proving can be automated without software. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I have some Automated Theorem Proving software". "I have some Automated Theorem Proving". The 2nd sentence doesn't work. So "software" is not redundant in the sense of being an understood meaning when omitted. tooold (talk) 16:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly instead of "better", I should have said "consistent with the naming convention of adding "software" to the article name. 69.106.226.205 (talk) 04:51, 18 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Orlando Florida to Category:People from Orlando, Florida

Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate, possible speedy. (I found this one in the orphanage). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge as typographical error. Bencherlite^Talk 11:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, probably speedy Travtim^(Talk) 20:49, 16 November 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 main category to Category:Political parties in India by state and all subcategories to "Political parties in (state name). This matches Category:Cities and towns in India by state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming All subcats of Category:Political parties in Indian states.

Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing all subcategories of this be renamed to more normal titles; for example, I think Category:Indian political parties-Sikkim should become Category:Political parties of Sikkim, or something similar. The current names, with these dashes, are unnecessarily awkward. Picaroon (t) 02:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do think it worth keeping the fact that these are federal states in India, not countries, in the titles. Johnbod (talk) 03:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The present category titles are unsatisfactory, but the appropriate solution needs to be determined by Indian Wikipedians, who are familiar with their own political system, not by foreigners (like me).
• Comment: The subcats were created at the time when the standard naming scheme for political parties by country was 'Fooian political parties'. I do see the point of the nominator of making the scheme more neat, avoiding the dashes. However, we should bear in mind that:
  • Category:Political parties in Jammu & Kashmir, could hypotechically also include the parties on the Pakistani side of the LoC. If Category:Political parties in Jammu & Kashmir would be a subcat to both Category:Political parties in Indian states as well as Category:Political parties in Pakistan, we'd have an edit war of epic proportions ahead. Thus the naming would have to include a marker that it deals with the Indian side only.
  • Sikkim is a bit of a special case, since that cat includes both parties that existed prior to integration with India in 1975 as well as contemporary parties.

--Soman (talk) 13:37, 21 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging: Category:Runestones, Skåne into Category:Runestones in Scania

Nominator's rationale: The main entry is Scania. Two duplicating categories exist for the same articles: "Runestones in Scania"/"Runestones, Skåne". Following the decision in another renaming discussion,[1] where it was decided that the name should be in the format "Runestones in Scania", I suggest a merger of "Runestones, Skåne" into that category, rather than the other way around. The articles in this newly created and newly populated category were moved here by depopluating Category:Runestones in Scania. Pia 02:13, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above.--Berig 16:31, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom; this was already resolved before. -- Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as duplicate Travtim^(Talk) 20:51, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. There should not be two categories with almost the same name. As Scania is used as the English name for Skåne, it is perhaps the best solution. Perhaps the other provincial categories should be completed with the word "in", just for the uniformity. But it is not that important. But the merger of the two categories is. --Muniswede (talk) 22:29, 19 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Zenit football managers to Category:FC Zenit Saint Petersburg managers

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match the team's article name and the format of Category:FC Zenit Saint Petersburg players. Carlossuarez46 01:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match the main article FC Zenit Saint Petersburg. Bencherlite^Talk 11:46, 16 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Web mashups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete one item category, that could probably contain more as the definition of the term in our article is sufficiently loosey-goosey that nearly all web applications may qualify so ultimately not-defining. Carlossuarez46 01:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bencherlite^Talk 02:37, 23 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. Route 36 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete two article category for a road, not much room for expansion. Carlossuarez46 01:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 20:53, 16 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Gazette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete eponymous category for a band per multiple precedents. Carlossuarez46 01:10, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and multiple previous instances. (There was a song floating around in this category, which I moved to Category:The Gazette songs). Bencherlite^Talk 12:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overly generic. What about the many newspapers called "The Gazette" which would more usually appropriate this category. -- 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:22, 16 November 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 to Category:Desperate Housewives characters and Category:Lists of television characters. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of Desperate Housewives characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Only one member, due to deletion of all other members. CrazyLegsKC 01:09, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Desperate Housewives characters. Otto4711 03:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to category:Desperate Housewives characters and Category:Lists of fictional characters by work so that the list can still be found through both of its parent categories. Bencherlite^Talk 12:11, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd suggest the second merge be to Category:Lists of television characters instead. Otto4711 (talk) 13:45, 19 November 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. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Interstate 72 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete one-item category for a 300km stretch of road, not much room for expansion of either the road or the category. Carlossuarez46 01:04, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, mostly per nom. (The road could be expanded coast-to-coast, but until it is the category ain't needed).</pedant> --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Travtim^(Talk) 20:54, 16 November 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.