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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:05, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete one article in this cat, not needed. Carlossuarez46 23:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom Johnbod 22:35, 3 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:46, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shadow Yamato X (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Unneeded category that only serves to hold the one immediately below, which ought to be merged away anyway. Carlossuarez46 23:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, game in question is a hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Yamato X series. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: As above. -Carados 02:09, 3 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. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Shadow Yamato X games to Category:Video games developed in Japan

Nominator's rationale: Merge, One item (and curiously one user) in the category, better to upmerge. Carlossuarez46 23:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, game in question is a hoax. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shadow Yamato X series. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:As above. Note, the user's page is an exact copy-paste of an older version of the page, and he is the creator of both the page and the category. -Carados 02:09, 3 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 wrong forum - taken to WP:SFD -- Grutness...wha? 23:47, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Serbian building and structure stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Found this in orphanage, found some parents, but this doesn't seem to have come out of the stub folks' realm but was just created, has two articles which may indicate that it's new and not yet populated or that it's creation is unwarranted at this time. I know many people who participate in CFDs are stub sorters so I'll see what you think. Carlossuarez46 23:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stub categories should be discussed at Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. Aecis^Brievenbus 23:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. Templates for stubs are discussed there, not categories that have been created without any template or real stub associated with it. Carlossuarez46 18:58, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aecis is right - this belongs at SFD, not here. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 1 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 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Projects by Dubai Properties (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: PCAT: Buildings by developer is a form of performer by performance, and I cannot find any other similar categories. The one article here is also en route to deletion. Carlossuarez46 23:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as empty. We do have Category:Buildings and structures by architect which includes categories for buildings by company but I have not looked into them to see if the companies are all architectural firms. Otto4711 17:56, 2 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 (talk) 21:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National extreme journeys (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete one article in the category, but many countries have no "canonical" extreme journeys. There are lots of transnational roads, routes, air routes, but this isn't particularly worth collecting together, what does the current entrant have in common with the trans-siberian railroad, or interstate 80, or a stroll across the forecourt of St Peter's basilica, or along Monaco's beach? Nada. Carlossuarez46 22:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, unless others produced. Rename needed anyway. Johnbod 13:12, 3 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 no consensus. Reverse merge might work ok, but Marketing research wasn't tagged. Relisting for the reverse is in order.. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Market research (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete recently created and left in the orphanage. Although there is a long description in this cat of what it is trying to capture, it doesn't seem appropriate or discriminate, rather anything that tries to make money for someone using consumers as free guinea pigs. Yes, well, arguably the entire internet is that. Carlossuarez46 21:58, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge with the huge Category:Marketing research. Actually the holy fool who set this up without looking for the real category has hit on the better name. Marketing research explains that Market research is the broader term, and the contents of the older category cover both. In addition "market research" is the term used in Britain for what (if the article is to be believed) is called "marketing research" in the US (though the accuracy of this is much debated on the talk page). Either way, a reverse merge is best, but the note on the older category is better, & should be moved over. Johnbod 03:46, 1 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 keep. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete improper categorization of people by opinion. Carlossuarez46 21:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Justification for the creation of these 3 categories: long list of people developing on Georgism page, analogy with categories such as Category:Socialists and Category:Feminist economists. The word "opinion" does not appear anywhere in the text of Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people so I don't understand the rationale given here. Pm67nz 01:12, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Georgism, as explained in the WP article that anyone can read, is a school of economic and political thought. There are similar and justified categories for various schools of thought. Just because it might not known to one editor is no reason to delete the catgegory. Hmains 03:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hmains. So long as the members all wrote or campaigned in support of Georgist policies, which a small sample suggested was the case, they are not caught by the "opinion" section, as I think precedents have found. Compare Category:Neoplatonists and Category:Abolitionists as well. Johnbod 03:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, what styles come and go in various economic and political thought are now bases for categories, we have Category:Supply-Side Economists and now we can have Categeory:Supply-Side politicians to lump in any politician who favored that economic theory at any time and Category:Supply-Siders to lump them both together? It's various people by opinion, which is OCAT. Carlossuarez46 19:03, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • So that's where that policy is. It does say there "Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic" and I think Category:Georgists can meet that test. I am not planning on categorising Henry Ford, Leo Tolstoy, Mark Twain or William F. Buckley, Jr. as Georgists because their Georgist opinions didn't lead them to do much in the way of active promotion of Georgist policies. I first created only Category:Georgist politicians and Category:Georgist economists because it is in the nature of those professions that their positions on thing like land tax are relevant to (and usually clear from) their work. Later I found there were quite a few trade unionists etc. such as Edward_McHugh who were so heavily involved in the Single Tax movement that they deserve to be categorised as Georgists if anyone is, even if they were never elected to a political office, so I put them directly into Category:Georgists. The discussion above has given me the idea that Category:Georgist activists is probably where they should be. There will be borderline cases where people may be improperly classified based on their opinions rather than their actions or their academic work - eg: I'm not sure about Herbert Simon and if better evidence doesn't turn up over the next couple of weeks I will remove him - but that doesn't invalidate the categories themselves. Pm67nz 22:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Fooist activists" is often a good route. The other two are probably ok Johnbod 00:03, 3 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 keep. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgist politicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete improper categorization of people by opinion. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Georgism, as explained in the WP article that anyone can read, is a school of economic and political thought. There are similar and justified categories for various schools of thought. Just because it might not known to one editor is no reason to delete the catgegory. Hmains 03:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hmains & my comment above. Johnbod 03:08, 1 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 keep. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Georgist economists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete improper categorization of economists by opinion. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nothing improper at all. Georgism, as explained in the WP article that anyone can read, is a school of economic and political thought. There are similar and justified categories for various schools of thought. Just because it might not known to one editor is no reason to delete the catgegory. Hmains 03:07, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Hmains & my comment 2 up. Johnbod 03:09, 1 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 (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fukuoka Asian Culture Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete over-categorization based on winning an award from the city of Fukuoka. Carlossuarez46 21:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete First let's have an article on it... Johnbod 04:14, 1 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 (talk) 21:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:European Poker Players Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete OCAT by nn award. The hall of fame was set up by one guy apparently not a big deal no physical hall, and "European Poker Players Hall of Fame" has all of 43 ghits so its unlikely to be important in these folks' careers or lives. Carlossuarez46 17:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikiproject Poker has been notified of this AfD.

• Neutral leaning delete I am neutral on this AfD. I had never heard of this hall of fame before. But I'll let others from the WikiProject chime in.Balloonman 21:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation. I've heard of it... most notably when the nearly identically named category was deleted in this "Halls of fame" nomination just three weeks ago.--Mike Selinker 03:30, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment as the creator of the cat, I was unaware of the previous CFD.Balloonman 05:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, & the article seems to be borderline notable at best. Not exactly a crushing majority last time, so I won't add as recreation. Johnbod 04:16, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per this nom and my previous nom. Otto4711 16:11, 1 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 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:EuroCup 2007-08 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete found this in the orphanage, found some parents but upon reflection many international sporting competitions have preliminaries broken up like this and surely we don't need categorization for each of them, as they should and usually are all linked from the main article on the competition. Carlossuarez46 17:21, 30 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. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete Eponymous cat for a band, OCAT per numerous precedents. Carlossuarez46 17:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Having checked, I can confirm that all of these articles are in the usual appropriate categories (Category:Disturbed albums, Category:Disturbed songs and the newly-created Category:Disturbed members) as well as this eponymous category. Furthermore, there is ((Disturbed)) to link the material together. Usual precedents point to deletion. Bencherlite^Talk 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and countless precedents. Otto4711 18:07, 2 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 (talk) 21:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs about drug use (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This was A7'ed, but I have restored it and placed it here as it is populated and was not placed at CFDW. This is a procedural nom and I have no opinion regarding disposition. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete category with overly subjective criteria. JuJube 15:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete suffers from the same problems most of these "songs about" do: how much about the subject matter must it be and what RSes tell us that it is at least this much. Unlike most of these categories there are probably some songs that are clearly "in" the category but they often come from both a pro- & a con- point of view that makes lumping them together seems incongruous compare Cocaine by Eric Clapton with Cocaine by Jackson Browne, for example. Carlossuarez46 17:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no clear criteria for inclusion, encourages original research; Carlossuarez makes good points too, as usual. Bencherlite^Talk 20:57, 30 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. Used only to create non-notable pages. Spellcast (talk) 11:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2-3D Students (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category created only to contain nonsense pages that are all going for speedy deletion Mayalld (talk) 11:37, 30 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. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Jacksonville to Category:Buildings and structures in Jacksonville, Florida

Category:Culture of Jacksonville to Category:Culture of Jacksonville, Florida

Category:Jacksonville musical groups to Category:Jacksonville, Florida musical groups

Category:Geography of Jacksonville to Category:Geography of Jacksonville, Florida

Category:Government of Jacksonville to Category:Government of Jacksonville, Florida

Category:Mayors of Jacksonville to Category:Mayors of Jacksonville, Florida

Category:History of Jacksonville to Category:History of Jacksonville, Florida

Category:Jacksonville stubs to Category:Jacksonville, Florida stubs

Category:Jacksonville media to Category:Jacksonville, Florida media

Category:Jacksonville television anchors to Category:Jacksonville, Florida television anchors

Category:Television stations in Jacksonville to Category:Television stations in Jacksonville, Florida

Category:Sports in Jacksonville to Category:Sports in Jacksonville, Florida

Category:Transportation in Jacksonville to Category:Transportation in Jacksonville, Florida

Category:Bridges in Jacksonville to Category:Bridges in Jacksonville, Florida

Nominator's rationale: Lets clean all of these up. If I missed any, feel free to add them. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename I've been making an effort to clean a few of the Jacksonville Categories up to distinguish them from other cities named Jacksonville. I'm glad others are also making an effort to do the same. Subwayatrain 21:33, 30 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. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Jacksonville to Category:Universities and colleges in Jacksonville, Florida

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename this category to distinguish it from other cities named Jacksonville. Subwayatrain (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - There are other cities with similar names. And, non-Americans may not know that Jacksonville is in Florida. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 04:31, 30 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 speedily deleted by Xaosflux. Bencherlite^Talk 17:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kid Nation participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I created this category when the Kid Nation participants had separate articles. They were all nominated for deletion because of notability issues and then it was decided to merge them all into a List of Kid Nation participants article. So this category isn't needed anymore. Ospinad (talk) 01:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per creator's request. You can tag the category with ((db-author)) should this sort of thing recur in future. Otto4711 (talk) 02:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll try to remember that for the future. Ospinad (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per creator's request. Doczilla (talk) 09:44, 30 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. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:33, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Category only has one member and that member more accurately belongs to Category:Grinding mills. --GentlemanGhost (talk) 01:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, though there must be a "food processing companies" or similar it should also be in. Johnbod 00:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added Swany Mills to Category:Food manufacturers shortly after nominating this category for deletion. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 00:40, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• OK for delete of Miller provided article under it is transferred to Category:Grinding mills since the article was originally mis-categorized under flour --J'ai osé (talk) 01:04, 03 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did so shortly after I nominating the category. Cheers, GentlemanGhost 00:37, 4 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. Kbdank71 (talk) 21:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming several categories to include Sint Maarten instead of Saint Martin (Netherlands)

Nominator's rationale: The article on the island of Sint Maarten in the Netherlands Antilles was moved from Saint Martin (Netherlands) to Sint Maarten per WP:RM on June 6th of this year. I request that the following categories be renamed to correspond to the new title of the article:

Category:Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Sint Maarten

Category:Culture of Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Culture of Sint Maarten

Category:Sport in Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Sport in Sint Maarten

Category:Economy of Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Economy of Sint Maarten

Category:Trade unions of Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Trade unions of Sint Maarten

Category:Education in Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Education in Sint Maarten

Category:National symbols of Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:National symbols of Sint Maarten

Category:Politics of Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Politics of Sint Maarten

Category:Political parties in Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Political parties in Sint Maarten

Category:Settlements in Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Settlements in Sint Maarten

Category:Transport in Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Transport in Sint Maarten

Category:Aviation in Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Aviation in Sint Maarten

Category:Airports in Saint Martin (Netherlands)‎ to Category:Airports in Sint Maarten

Aecis^Brievenbus 00:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all to match main article, but perhaps a redirect (at least for the main category) wouldn't go amiss. Bencherlite^Talk 21:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support - almost proposed the same thing myself abouyt two weeks ago. Should any named "Saint Martin (France)" be renamed to "Saint-Martin", too? Grutness...wha? 22:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure. Such a renaming might cause confusion with Saint Martin (the entire island) and other articles included in St. Martin (disambiguation). Aecis^Brievenbus 14:10, 2 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:NHS Highland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Defunct category - health board is now known as NHS Highland and Argyll. Suxamethonium (talk) 00:15, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as empty and as superceded by Category:NHS Highland and Argyll. Not empty for 4 days, it appears, so not speediable. Bencherlite^Talk 21:21, 30 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.