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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Newspapers by format (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - There doesn't seem to be any real need for this category, especially if/when Category:Tabloid newspapers is deleted. Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I agree that tabloid category should to be clarified (see below), but newspapers by format seems potentially useful. Notable formats include weekly and dailies; tabloid & broadsheet isn't quite the same. Also, online is more of a medium than a format but might have some format differences as well; and there may be other formats that are appropriate categories. Any journalism experts about to give an opinion on this? --Lquilter (talk) 04:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah yes, you've reminded me that "format" is one of those squishy terms that can be somewhat problematic in category names. People tend to interpret it to cover a variety of things: physical form, medium, etc. We probably need to have a discussion around this issue, and decide whether we want to impose consistent restrictions on how categories by format are used. In this particular case, the question of periodicity is already covered by Category:Newspapers by publication frequency. However, I've raised another question in the related CFD on Category:Tabloid newspapers: are the differences in physical format sufficiently important to warrant an entire category structure? Cgingold (talk) 05:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• question if a newpaper is not online or tabloid format, what is called in the newspaper trade? Should we have a sub-category those these also, to be complete? Hmains (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not quite sure what you're asking about -- could you elaborate? What other sorts of newspapers are you referring to? Cgingold (talk) 01:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are broadsheet and berliner (format) (mid-size) formats; those are the UK terms anyway, and appear to be the US ones too. Of course very many papers have changed between them in recent years. Johnbod (talk) 03:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not now a permanent or defining feature, see below. Very far from complete. Johnbod (talk) 03:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per johnbod. --Lquilter (talk) 07:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tabloid newspapers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - This encompasses both major meanings of the term "tabloid" -- too ambiguous to be useful as a category. Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 23:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• ???? I guess I didn't word my description correctly. I thought I made it clear that the category is intended to include newspapers that are published in the tabloid format, which is a reasonably objective criterion. I used the phrase "may or may not practice Tabloid journalism" to make it clear that the category is based on physical page size, not on content.

Thus, for example, in the days when it was still a print publication, Computerworld would have qualified as a tabloid newspaper and would have been included in this category.

Suppose the description were reworded: "This category includes newspapers in the tabloid format. This category is solely based on the physical format of the newspapers' pages." Would that change anything? Dpbsmith (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• If we decide to keep this category it clearly needs to be renamed to Category:Tabloid format newspapers, which at least would take care of the ambiguity issue. However, there is also another issue: it seems rather odd to categorize only tabloid format newspapers. What about the other formats, compact, Berliner, and broadsheet? In other words, are the differences in format sufficiently important to warrant an entire category structure? Cgingold (talk) 04:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per discussion below; if kept, rename to Category:Tabloid format newspapers to be clearer in light of the common usage of "tabloid" to mean a style of journalism as well as a printing format. --Lquilter (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• question Newspapers have been known to change their format. Is this category just for newpapers that are currently tabloid format or at least for part of their life were tabloid format? Hmains (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Very good point -- which lends additional support to my concerns about using this characteristic as the basis for a category structure. Cgingold (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. After reading the lead for Tabloid, I wonder if this is defining of simply OCAT? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• delete not defining; very few actually in cat. Johnbod (talk) 03:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:53, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crusade historians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Rename to Category:Historians of the Crusades. The current name is oddly-phrased. Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 23:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename OR ... Certainly this needs to be renamed, but I'm curious whether it's not a bit overly specific anyway. Are scholars of the crusades so typically not scholars of anything else, that they are thus defined? --Lquilter (talk) 04:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I can give you a definitive answer on that, but here are a few observations:

• In terms of degree of specificity, I would say that this category is roughly comparable to, for example, Category:Historians of the French Revolution.
• More broadly, I would say that some historians are true specialists, and at the other end of the spectrum, some could be termed "generalists". Most seem to fall somewhere in between, with two or three areas of special focus.
• One further consideration is that Category:Historians is itself a sub-category of Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area. Which means that readers are using it to find historians who write on particular subjects within the field of history.

So all in all, I don't really see sub-cats like this as overly narrow, especially when there are a sizeable number of people who meet the description. Hope that helps! Cgingold (talk) 06:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay - it seems a bit writer by subject to me; we don't do, for instance, biologists at that level of specificity. But if we commonly do historians at that level of detail, then we do. --Lquilter (talk) 15:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom for clarity Hmains (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom r similar. Valid category - includes contemporary chroniclers too. Johnbod (talk) 19:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Rename to Category:Visualization (graphic) for clarity and consistency with main article Visualization (graphic). Notified creator with ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Revolving door to Category:Revolving door (politics)

Nominator's rationale: To match article name Revolving door (politics). Or delete as small with little potential for growth. LeSnail (talk) 20:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - small and unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment Wrong assumptions. This has a huge potential for growth; the question is whether all the thousands of politicians and civil servants who are part of this process (and have WP articles) should to be categorized into this category. Hmains (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete exactly wrong for a category - useful lists & articles could be made by the hundred, I'm sure. Johnbod (talk) 19:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Johnbod, and we shouldn't be creating concepts categories and putting biographies into them; people categories are for that and perhaps it's time to make that explicitly a rule here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! Johnbod (talk) 10:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:52, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Notable Armenian genocide victims to Category:Armenian Genocide victims

Nominator's rationale: If they weren't notable, they wouldn't have articles. Also correcting capitalization of "Genocide." LeSnail (talk) 20:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, go with it. Chaldean (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Snocrates 06:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Note: unless we make it explicity otherwise, victims include survivors as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (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 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Neighborhoods in Tucson to Category:Neighborhoods in Tucson, Arizona

Category:People from Tucson to Category:People from Tucson, Arizona

Category:Television stations in Tucson to Category:Television stations in Tucson, Arizona

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with parent Category:Tucson, Arizona and main article Tuscon, Arizona and precedent. LeSnail (talk) 19:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I totally agree, Adrian Comollo (talk) 20:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:List of Major Companies In Pakistan to Category:Companies of Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate. It is not a list. And who is to say whether a company is "major" or not? LeSnail (talk) 19:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Merge per nom. Noroton (talk) 00:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC) -- Oops. Fixed. Noroton (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:55, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lawyers & Law Firms Found Guilty of Legal Misconduct (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It doesn't seem to me that this is defining. If kept, rename to Category:Lawyers and law firms found guilty of legal misconduct to correct capitalization. LeSnail (talk) 19:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep/rename the distinction seems important and useful; the capitalization needs correcting. Noroton (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Good lord, this is certainly not defining. Do you know how large some of these firms are? It's like saying, I don't know, some sports teams found guilty of misconduct. I think it would be a great article or articles if people want to write about law firm misconduct - there's plenty of it - but a category is really not the right way to do this. (Confession: I am an attorney albeit not in private practice.) --Lquilter (talk) 04:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Very similar cat deleted not long ago, & as Lquilter says, not defining. Johnbod (talk) 19:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not defining, arguably a misuse of category system, and category is not a member of any other categories. --kingboyk (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - most law firms have been given some sort of sanctions in the US for minor things that all fit under "misconduct" - too many pages in your brief, a wrong objection, failure to move a case speedily enough, yadda yadda. Not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese Americans from Utah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. No need to divide Japanese Americans by state. LeSnail (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom - I don't see a good rationale for dividing into subcats by state. Cgingold (talk) 22:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fairly pointless OCAT. Snocrates 06:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as OCAT. — Dale Arnett (talk) 16:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• No strong view, but is the correct response not Upmerge to Japanese Americans? Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another unneeded ethnic/race category, no indication that Japanese Americans from Utah are any different that non-Japanese Americans from Utah, if a merge be needed it should be to Category:People from Utah - they are people and only those obsessed by race need to change that to Japanese Americans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to the 2 parent cats: Category:People from Utah and Category:Japanese Americans. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 18:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian people by lifestyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Random grab bag for such "lifestyles" as adopting children, being a vegetarian, being a criminal, being gay, or speaking English. No clear inclusion criteria. LeSnail (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Otto4711 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Noroton (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - In addition to vagueness, "lifestyle" is used by some people to reflect a particular POV on being gay. Since it's used for gay as well as a bunch of other stuff it's ambiguous and inappropriate as well as vague. --Lquilter (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all above. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Books by Ann-Marie MacDonald to Category:Works by Ann-Marie McDonald

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The subcats are for plays and novels. This should be in the more encompassing Works by structure since we don't categorize plays as books. Otto4711 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. LeSnail (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Noroton (talk) 00:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:28, 8 January 2008 (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 16:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chinese chess players to Category:Chess players who are Chinese

Nominator's rationale: Rename. because Chinese chess is a different game, and these are western chess players from China, and not chinese chess players. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 13:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it should be noted that User:Doczilla did an out of process deletion of the CFR template on this category. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 13:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I was in the process of fixing it, but you immediately jumped on it. You didn't capitalize Chinese in the original CfR template. You also might give a guy a chance to reply before you feel compelled to tattle. Doczilla (talk) 13:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It says it was done using VP, and a note appears on my talk page talking about not being constructive, so it doesn't appear like a correction in the edit summary, or the comment to my talk page. 70.51.10.115 (talk) 13:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Noroton (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but make the header clear that it's not for players of Xiangqi. We also need Category:Xiangqi players, which would naturally have the subcategory Category:Chinese xiangqi players for people like Hu Ronghua.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to something maybe "Chinese players of chess" which is a bit less awkward than "Chess players who are Chinese". --Lquilter (talk) 04:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How about "Chess players of the People's Republic of China"? cab (talk) 08:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Mike Selinker said make it clear that its not for Xiangqi as the naming convention goes. Also not all the players now play for the People's Republic of China. THis should be kept standard with the Category Chess players by nationality. Lop.dong (talk) 14:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fits with the rest of the categories in Category:Chess players by nationality and is the most logical name. The small ambiguity with Chinese chess is avoided by calling Chinese chess Xiangqi. Also, a note can be put into the category underlining that it is not about Xiangqi but chess. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 20:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for consistency in the parent cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I considered this issue when I created the cat, but Chinese chess is a redirect to Xiangqi. The current cat name fits the pattern of everything in Category:Chess players by nationality, which I patterned on other subcats of Category:Sportspeople by nationality. An explanation on the category page would be appropriate. Quale (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Quale. Voorlandt (talk) 08:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment even if it fits the naming pattern, that should not make it a good name because it is inherently ambiguous, and category names should be less ambiguous than article names, since category contents are harder to maintain than article contents, among other reasons. Also, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy... (or isn't supposed to be) 70.55.87.75 (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Quale. The category for the players of Shogi, or Japanese chess, is Category:Shogi players and not Category:Japanese chess players. No confusion there. --Saintjust (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really parallel. "Japanese chess" [1] is not a common name in English for Shogi [2], so no one is likely to confuse "Japanese chess players" and "Shogi players". In contrast, "Chinese chess" is a well-known term in English. cab (talk) 05:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since when is Chinese chess more well-known than Japanese chess in English? Shogi has an entry in American heritage [3] and webster [4] whereas Chinese chess or Xiangqi doesn't. --Saintjust (talk) 10:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are misunderstanding my comment and thus missing the point. This is not a nationalism contest about which country's chess game is more well known.
        1. "Shogi" is well-known in English ... by the name "Shogi", which gets a million GHits [5]
        2. It is never known as "Japanese chess".
        3. Because of (2), "Japanese chess" does not have an entry in the dictionary [6] and gets only some tens of thousands of GHits [7]
        4. Because of (3), no one confuses "Japanese chess player" with "Shogi player", they know it means "Chess player who is Japanese".
        5. But "Xiangqi" is commonly known in English as "Chinese chess", which also gets about a million GHits [8]
        6. Because of (5), "Chinese chess player" could mean "Xiangqi player" or "Chess player who is Chinese".
      • Regards, cab (talk) 11:22, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The point is that neither "Xiangqi" nor "Chinese chess" is notable enough to be found in major English dictionaries. Thus, there is no point in worrying about confusion when there aren't many people who recognize either name to begin with. --Saintjust (talk) 11:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gaijin tarento to Category:Gaikokujin tarento

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Main article was moved in February from Gaijin tarento to Gaikokujin tarento to conform better with Japanese WP. Category name should probably be changed now too for consistency. Snocrates 10:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, makes sense. Noroton (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency with main article. LeSnail (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't think there was consensus achieved for the original move, which quite clearly violates WP:NAME as not being the most common name. I've re-raised the issue on Talk:Gaikokujin tarento and welcome your comments; if the consensus goes against me, I will withdraw this objection. Jpatokal (talk) 12:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 15:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Furry to Category:Furry fandom

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For clarity/dab purposes and to match main article Furry fandom. Snocrates 09:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. –Pomte 11:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Noroton (talk) 00:44, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I'm a furry, and I approve of this renaming. GreenReaper (talk) 05:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relisted on jan 11. Kbdank71 16:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Raleigh-Durham to Category:Radio stations in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per established precedent, categories of this type should include the state name. JPG-GR (talk) 09:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. –Pomte 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. LeSnail (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose is there another Raleigh Durham that might be causing confusion? Not that I know of. Precedent is established for geographic names which might cause confusion (London, Paris, Washington, etc.) but this one shouldn't be a problem.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. This is not a actual place so including the state makes sense. Having said that, a better name to match the parent Category:The Triangle, North Carolina might be Category:Radio stations in The Triangle, North Carolina. Right now, there appears to be some overlap in how those two names are being used in categories. I don't know if they are the same or not. But if The triangle is the parent and not Category:Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina or Category:Raleigh-Durham then maybe this alternative needs to be considered. Which ever way this goes, some renaming of the categories in this area is needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would be perfectly happy with Category:Radio stations in The Triangle, North Carolina or similar, except I don't know if that's a good choice. Not being from the region, I've heard of "Raleigh-Durham" often, but never "The Triangle" (sans the Bermuda Triangle). As for overlapping, that's why I don't care for these regional based categories, but that's just my opinion. JPG-GR (talk) 03:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The area is commonly referred to as either The Research Triangle or The Triangle but with all the Tri-cities and Triangles for other clusters of 3 similarly sized cities, we should avoid assuming The Triangle is very descriptive. The Triad or Piedmont Triad is just up the road in fact. --Rtphokie (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to triangle... per Vegaswikian. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 15:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Radio stations in Iron Range (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category is currently empty. Unlike 99% of all other U.S. radio geographic categories, which are by city or metropolitan area, this category is for a large region. Additionally, there is no geographical parent category (e.g. Category:Iron Range, Minnesota). JPG-GR (talk) 08:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Noroton (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Speedy Delete per nom.--Rtphokie (talk) 02:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• There's a template at ((Iron Range radio)) that lists all the radio stations serving the market, but only KAXE, WTBX, KMFY, WNMT, and KOZY are truly based in the Iron Range. (Well, there's WELY, WEVE, KGPZ, and probably some other redlinks in the Iron Range.) Still, I can't get excited about putting all the Iron Range radio stations into their own category -- it's not like Category:Radio stations in Minnesota is unnavigable or something. The navbox template is more useful than the category anyway, so go ahead and delete this category. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (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 15:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Phoenix to Category:Radio stations in Phoenix, Arizona

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Wilkes-Barre to Category:Radio stations in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in El Paso to Category:Radio stations in El Paso, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per established precedent, categories of this type should include the state name. (Not sure how these ones were missed in the batch from December 29, 2007.) JPG-GR (talk) 08:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. –Pomte 11:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. LeSnail (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2008 (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 listify and delete. Kbdank71 15:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by region (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Palestinian organizations designated as terrorist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Kurdish organizations designated as terrorist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per words to avoid. I believe Iran has designated USAF as terrorist. -- Cat ^chi? 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep not even words to avoid prohibits us from using the word "terrorist", and the categories seem very useful. Noroton (talk) 00:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Change to Listify and delete per Otto in order to provide ability to source. Noroton (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete - That an organization has been designated as terrorist by someone or something demands reliable sourcing. A list article allows for that sourcing. Categories do not. Otto4711 (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify & Delete per Otto. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 8 January 2008 (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.