< August 23	August 25 >

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. Kbdank71 16:25, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional owners - This would likely include every fictional character ever created. - jc37 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as nominator. - jc37 23:26, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it does suggest Category:Owners, which is surely ridiculous. Occuli (talk) 23:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable...who doesn't own something? CTJF83Talk 00:12, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Owners of what? Pets, apparently... probably not worth renaming. — CharlotteWebb 13:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't conceive of what this is even used for, "Calvin" of Calvin and Hobbes is not the owner of a pet, AFAIK, since Hobbes is a plushdoll. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 12:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, category subject is way too indiscriminate. Of the three characters listed, one owns a hotel, one owns a pet, and one owns a toy he thinks is a pet. One cannot simply be an "owner", one has to be the owner of something which is already specified as the main subject. For example, Garfield is the main subject, and Jon Arbuckle is his owner. At best, this category should be split into "Category:Fictional pet owners", "Category:Fictional estate owners", etc., but I do not think there is demand for any of these categories. JIP | Talk 19:50, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as indiscriminate, overly broad. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 05:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename/merge. Kbdank71 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

• Category:Indian South Africans to Category:South Africans of Indian descent
• Category:Portuguese South Africans to Category:South Africans of Portuguese descent

Nominator's rationale: as per naming convention Mayumashu (talk) 23:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 09:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. --Wassermann (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete redirect. Kbdank71 16:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mass transit in Oregon to Category:Public transport in Oregon

Nominator's rationale: Just cleaning up after an out-of-process emptying and (IMO, unnecessary) soft redirect of category. I think old, empty category can just be deleted instead of redirected. Check user's contribs in case there are more similar to this one. Katr67 (talk) 19:00, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename broader category, more inclusive CTJF83Talk 00:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Military industrial complex to Category:Military-industrial complex, per Military-industrial complex. - jc37 04:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Military industrial complex (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category lacks a clear rationale/description; the category header does not give much clarification:

Military, industrial and politics, called military-industrial complex, involved in use, research, development, production, and political approuvements of military equipment, facilities and war initiatives.

Do governments go here? Or government agencies? Do companies go here? What sort of companies? I'm not sure why this category should exist. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 18:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Probable Delete [changing to "Keep" - see below] -- This is an exceedingly important subject, but unless the category's creator can provide a workable rationale, it probably doesn't make much sense as a Category. Judging by the assortment of articles that were placed in it, my impression is that pretty much anything that relates in some way or other to the subject would qualify for the category. So where would the line be drawn, and what would be excluded? The point is, we already have well-developed category structures pertaining to the various elements of this subject, so I'm not sure what would be gained and what real purpose would be served by adding all of those articles to this category. But I'm open to persuasion. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is an exceedingly important subject, but a complex multidisciplinary one because it documents the interaction of the military and the industry via national policy and support of both. I will rewrite the main article introduction, although why the category name is written differently is unclear to me. Usually it is written Military-industrial complex--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 09:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• As I said, I'm open to persuasion on this. I think the starting point has to be providing good, clear inclusion criteria for the category (I'm not sure how that would be helped by changes to the article). I did see some articles that might form the nucleus of a category, in that they address the topic in a substantive way. One possibility that just occurred to me is that this might make more sense as a category if it were renamed/pluralized to Category:Military-industrial complexes. Cgingold (talk) 11:22, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• nota bene: There is already a primary article (Military-industrial complex), which is decently written; I'm not debating the noteworthiness of the concept; my issue is with the category. Having a category doesn't make sense to me, and while the re-written introduction is an improvement, it seems like very little currently in the category would fall under that description. -- Sertrel (talk | contribs) 14:31, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is a concept, not a classification. The current contents of the category are a real jumble with no uniting theme (other than a bit of POV-pushing). Nick Dowling (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename (slightly) - After devoting a couple of hours to carefully scrutinizing the contents of this category and of other, closely related categories, I determined that about half of the articles should be removed -- and I added an equal number of "new" articles that had not previously been included. In the end I concluded that this category does, in fact, serve a valid purpose by gathering together a series of articles dealing with the nexus of the military, the arms industry and government policy -- referred to as the "military-industrial complex" -- that would otherwise have to be divided among two or more parent categories. I think this will be far more clear once the articles that don't belong there have been removed. (They are the following: Project FUBELT, Daniel Guérin, ITT Corporation, James Kurth, Masters of War, William H. McNeill, C. Wright Mills, Peter W. Singer, United States intervention in Chile.) As I suggested above, it probably should be renamed to Category:Military-industrial complexes in order to encompass articles about MICs other than that of the United States. If not pluralized, it should in any event be hyphenated (Category:Military-industrial complex) to match the main article and standard usage. Cgingold (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Concur - thank you for doing that survey Cgingold--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Human name disambiguation pages. Kbdank71 14:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of ambiguous human names to Category:Ambiguous human names

Nominator's rationale: As a DAB cat it should be standardized with other DAB cats (e.g. Category:Ambiguous place names). - Icewedge (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, since the "articles" included are not lists at all. I'm surprised this one has been overlooked for so long. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:57, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• They are in fact lists, but of people with the same name (or similar names). One will see a "list of ambiguous human names", not a "List of lists of ambiguous human names" as the current title would imply . Rename. — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never heard a DAB page referred to as a "list" before. I think there's a distinction, isn't there? One is a list article, the other is a DAB page, which provides links to things of the same name. Or do you mean the category itself provides a "list"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Factually, dabs are lists... a list of possible values the title could mean. There's also a subtype of dab called a typelist (IIRC), like ship list. Support the rename. 70.55.85.122 (talk) 12:51, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but as category:Human name disambiguation. I don't think the name proposed above is clear enough. "George Washington" is an ambiguous human name, but we don't want to give people a reason for categorising the article George Washington in this category. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That category previously existed and got merged into this one. See the old debate here from 2006. Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been notified to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been notified to Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, although technically the pages are lists, it is not consistent in that dab pages are not list articles. I believe this was a product of a somewhat contentious editor attempting to impose a mildly misguided and idiosyncratic system. older ≠ wiser 21:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this category is populated using the ((hndis)) template, isn't it? So doesn't renaming just involved editing the template to change the category that the template should populate, creating the category, waiting for the categories to re/depopulate, and then deleting the empty one? Plus clearing up any manually categorised ones that ended up in there? The CfD instructions say to discuss this sort of thing at TfD, though I think that might only be when deletion is on the table, not a mere rename. I also found an old discussion here. Carcharoth (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - (Follow up of Carcaroth's above.) Just clicking on the link he posted doesn't quite tell the whole tale. After clicking, you have to scroll up to see the introductory information. Also, as far as I can find, other than the mathematics cats, these have been all deleted. See, for example, Category:Lists of ambiguous place names. and it's cfd. Note also that if this category is deleted (or even renamed/repurposed), it's parent Category:Lists of people by name, should also be deleted as it's the only member. - jc37 04:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - These are dab pages, not lists. Lists are topical, and allow for referencing, etc. A dab page is simply a navigational tool, which lists articles of the same or similar names (or anything else that may be useful for navigation). And the "human names" themselves are not ambiguous. What is ambiguous is to whom the names may refer on Wikipedia. (There is a difference between a person, and a person's name.) If kept, this should be renamed to something like: "Human name disambiguation pages". (Both "disambiguation" and "pages" are important for clarity.) See also: Category:Disambiguation. - jc37 04:02, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Deleting would result in a lot of uncategorised pages. Do you mean "upmerge to category:disambiguation"? I haven't read the old material, but a disambiguation sub-cat for hndis pages strikes me as useful. I therefore support renaming as "Human name disambiguation pages". - Fayenatic (talk) 21:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• To the closer - There is a fair amount of discussion here (all over the place), and the commenters all seem to indicate that there is a problem with the category. And I would also guess that most commenters have not seen Carcharoth's information. I would like to see this relisted for further discussion. - jc37 04:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • One further note. The old discussions took place before WP:HIDDEN CAT was available. That should be taken into consideration, I think. One of the problems was people wanting all dab pages populated in a main category, and others wanting subcats as well. The solution is probably to only have one showing on the page, and have the other one hidden. Or both? I don't know what the latest state of hidden categories is as far as CfD goes, so I'll leave that for others to comment on. Carcharoth (talk) 14:33, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• More comments - see Category:Disambiguation. That is part of the administration of the project (it is in Category:Wikipedia administration). The problem here is that people don't seem to be certain whether to categorise dab pages there or in "mainspace" categories, or both. For example, Category:Lists of roads sharing the same title is in both Category:Disambiguation and Category:Roads. Ditto for these names. And if you really want to be confused, look at Category:Disambiguation categories... (actually very sensible once you realise what is being done there). Carcharoth (talk) 14:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support renaming as nominated. In my opinion, pages tagged with ((hndis)) are disambiguation pages, which are lists which are not considered part of the article set (as pointed out above), lists not suitable for inclusion of citations. The topic holding list entries on these pages together is (as pointed out above as well) an encyclopedia administration topic, not an encyclopedic topic subject to inclusion criteria such as WP:N but rather subject to specific rules related to inclusion and content (in part described at WP:MOSDAB). --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment personally, I do not think it would be completely nutty to create a new namespace, the DAB namespace, which would hold the thousands (tens of thousands?) of dab pages which are not encyclopedic but nonetheless pretty essential to the usability of the encyclopedia. I don't think that they belong in the WP namespace because of the constraints on cross-namespace linking into that namespace; such a constraint could be eliminated for cross linking between (main) and DAB namespaces. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 16:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sperm donors to Category:Sperm donation

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To broaden the category to serve as a better container for such articles as Donor registration and Donor Sibling Registry. The category as it stands is WP:OC#SMALL with little likelihood for growth given the general anonymity of donors. Only one person in the category, Kirk Maxey is notable because he's a sperm donor. As an aside, including Cecil Jacobson in the category strikes me as more than a little bit grotesque. Otto4711 (talk) 18:14, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, although William Shockley does seem to belong. Occuli (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. But where's Michael Jackson? Cgingold (talk) 21:46, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• To the best of my knowledge, Michael Jackson has not donated sperm to a sperm bank. IIRC one or more of his children were supposedly conceived through artificial insemination but that's not the same thing as being an anonymous donor to a bank. Otto4711 (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, that was just a tiny little joke, Otto -- guess I should have added :) Cgingold (talk) 21:43, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. However, if a larger number of biographies are justifiably added by a later date then this decision should not prejudice re-creating Donors as a sub-cat. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Fictional sperm donors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no notability for a character to be in the fictional sperm donors category. I'm sure most, if not all, are from single episode circumstances. I know for sure Barney Gumble and Peter Griffin were sperm donors for no more than a few minutes in one episode. Not notable for its own category. CTJF83Talk 16:13, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - trivial characteristic in most if not all instances. Otto4711 (talk) 17:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I agree with the above. JIP | Talk 18:38, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Occuli (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I fully agree. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Speedy Rename - jc37 04:20, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Frederik Collett Paintings to Category:Frederik Collett paintings

Nominator's rationale: Rename, caps. Punkmorten (talk) 15:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - For future reference: things like this meet the criteria for Speedy Renaming, and can be taken directly to that page. Cgingold (talk) 21:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Both images are on Commons, so there is actually no need to categorise them here. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suvi Koponen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I think the category is completely needless. It is the only category named after an individual Finnish model, and all it contains is two pictures of Suvi Koponen. The category should be deleted, the images themselves should be kept, but the category tag should be removed from them. JIP | Talk 12:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there seems to be no scheme for categorising images of models (if there is I would suggest a rename or an upmerge). Occuli (talk) 20:09, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 16:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flora of Pitcairn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge into Category:Flora of the Pitcairn Islands. This is a duplicative category with a malformed name. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 10:06, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom per common usage for subcategories of Category:Pitcairn Islands. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:46, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: deleted creation by banned user see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DavidYork71 Gnangarra 12:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Collaborators with World War II era Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge into Category:Collaborators with Imperial Japan -- completely redundant. Cgingold (talk) 03:05, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 07:50, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Airborne warfare tactics to Category:Aerial warfare tactics - And the suggestion of cleanup with this and the other sub-cats of Category:Aerial warfare. - jc37 04:15, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Airborne warfare tactics to Category:Air warfare tactics Category:Aerial warfare tactics

Nominator's rationale: Airborne more commonly refers to the Airborne forces and not combat between aircraft. mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right about "airborne", but it should be renamed to Category:Aerial warfare tactics, which is also consistent with its parent cat, Category:Aerial warfare. However, it looks to me like some house-cleaning is in order -- why are articles like Aircraft recognition, Brevity code and Bomb damage assessment listed here? Category:Firebombing and Category:Strategic bombing are both sub-cats of Category:Aerial bombing. Firebombing is a type of bombing, but I'm not sure if it's properly referred to as a "tactic" per se; and Strategic bombing is, of course, a strategy, not a tactic at all. I've probably left out some others that are also questionable. Cgingold (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I am mostly basing myself on the usage in the Brassey's Air Power: Aircraft, weapons, systems and technology series which uses Air everywhere, though this may be UK usage. However, and you are right about parent category, the major use of tactics in the air is within the air superiority, which is not aerial superiority. I would not object to Aerial warfare tactics though. You are also correct about category clean up requirement--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 03:12, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If you agree on using "Aerial warfare tactics" you might want to amend your proposal to reflect that. (Just use the "strikethru" tags around Category:Air warfare tactics and insert the new name right after that.) Cgingold (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete with a suggestion to use the templates. - jc37 04:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Files that are public domain in the United States but not public domain in country of origin and that must not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons to Category:Files that are not in the Public Domain in their country of origin

Nominator's rationale: Current name is wayyyyyyy too long, rivals Longcat maybe, but we should be more concise with these things. ViperSnake151 20:57, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok with renaming, oppose nom (see below). I agree that it is too long as is, but the suggested version leaves out that a) it is PD in the US and b) Commons is a no-no. Those seem to be very important points. --Kbdank71 13:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason why details like that couldn't be placed in a usage note on the category, or its talk page, instead of in such an insanely long category name? Bearcat (talk) 08:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at this more closely, there are the two templates ((PD-US)) and ((|tl|Do not move to Commons)) which take care of those tow issues, so no, there is probably no reason to leave that in the category title. But then again, I can't imagine anyone wanting to browse images that are public domain in the US, but not in the country of origin, and don't copy to commons. So renaming seems pointless. Changing to delete. --Kbdank71 17:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator here. You have no idea how much of a problem this is. Commons deletes most files on sight not PD in country of origin, and tracking the issue can be hard. While they have developed a movebackbot to deal with the problem (file deleted at local wiki and on Commons, so not available anywhere) I think warning people BEFORE they move the file is an utmost priority. I do not think categorizing the files (especially if the cat name were hidden) is outside our maintenance goals. I do not object to a shorter name for the cat though.-Nard 07:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If your intent is to warn people, isn't the large banner created by the template a better solution than a category that may not even be seen? --Kbdank71 16:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• No strong opinion on the necessity of the category but if kept suggest Category:Files in the United States public domain but not in their country of origin that must not be hosted on Wikimedia Commons to shorten it a bit. Otto4711 (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to m:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, Jesus. — CharlotteWebb 13:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and use ((PD-US)) and ((Do not move to Commons)). Vegaswikian (talk) 06:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Do not move to Commons Then place in the description a full criteria. Even the opportunity to create a whole tree of cats for each country. Gnangarra 11:19, 29 August 2008 (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.