< January 16	January 18 >

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is not required to hold a single subcategory. Otto4711 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:48, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2009 (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:Global System for Mobile communications. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:GSM standard to Category:Global System for Mobile communications (GSM)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expansion of GSM acronym. The word "standard" was also redundant, as GSM is a standard. Mojodaddy (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Shouldn't that be Category:Global System for Mobile communications? Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is parenthesizing the acronym at the end against naming conventions? If so, remove it. I added it to make it clearer, and to indicate why "System" and "Mobile" were capitalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mojodaddy (talk • contribs) 18:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Global System for Mobile communications. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 22 January 2009 (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: no consensus. Kbdank71 15:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mobile phone standards to Category:Mobile telecommunications standards

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Telecommunications end user devices are not always "phones", per se. None of the standardizing organizations use the term "phone" when generically referring to end user devices. Also, a significant portion of pages in this category have to deal with standardizations across the entire mobile telecommunications infrastructure, and are not directed specifically for end user devices. Furthermore, the current wording makes it seem as if these standards are directed to just the end user devices, and just wherein that end user device is a "phone". Mojodaddy (talk) 20:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I think this proposal needs rethinking. The solution may simply be to create Category:Mobile telecommunications standards and make this a child cleaning up the articles that are left. If you look at the contents, it includes articles about cordless phones, which I don't believe are normally included under mobile phones. Given the issues and no discussion, it is better to leave it as is for now. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 22 January 2009 (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 15:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:G30 to Category:Group of Thirty

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename for clarity and to match the main article for the topic. Stepheng3 (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and populate (The cat has currently 3 members).--Lenticel ^(talk) 15:29, 18 January 2009 (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 (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete There are no entries in this category because there was never any fascist political party within Estonia. The closest was the Vaps Movement which scholars consider to be an authoritarian-nationalist movement rather than a true fascist party, and there is already a category Category:Members_of_the_Vaps_Movement. Martintg (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nomination points out, the category has no growth potential, so there's no point in keeping it around. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. --Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 10:10, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.HeartofaDog (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2009 (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 (now empty; only template was deleted). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, category contains only one template, which itself is unused and up for deletion. Eastlaw (talk) 08:41, 17 January 2009 (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 (was already deleted as empty, but consensus here was that it should have been deleted, even if populated). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Inappropriate category that is too highly subjective to be useful to readers or validly used by editors. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed, the only way this could possibly be objective would require basing the categorization on original research. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 10:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Ryulong (talk · contribs) speedy deleted this as an empty category; not sure what that means for this discussion, though. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me either. It was only empty because I removed it from the two pages the creator added it to because of the OR issues. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete +1 We simply can't have one list per anime/manga related key word, useless for readers, extremely subjective & insane to keep up to date.--KrebMarkt 18:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (bloody hell!)--Pan Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 13:46, 18 January 2009 (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 15:59, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:American conservative writers to ~~Category:American writers~~ Category:American political writers

Nominator's rationale: Merge and delete. This is another theoretical subcategory of the non-existent Category:American conservatives. It's non-existent because it was deleted. Similar categories that were being used to categorize Americans by conservative "sub-type" were recently deleted. This is one more in that series. To summarise: if we don't categorize American people as conservatives, then we shouldn't do an end-run around this by categorizing American writers as conservatives. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wherever possible I think these should be merged into Category:American political writers instead. I think "American writers" is an overly long parent category that probably doesn't need to be longer.--T. Anthony (talk) 12:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. Nomination amended. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination has merit. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 19:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose Being described as an "American conservative writer" is one of the strongest defining characteristics available. The fantasy that Americans cannot be identified by political beliefs continues, due to the alleged inability to define political beliefs with complete and total perfection, in complete ignorance of the reliable and verifiable sources that have no such trouble using the label "Conservative" and attaching it to the word writer, in various forms. Individuals such as William F. Buckley, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz and George Will, whose writings are infused with their American Conservatism, are now going to be arbitrarily lumped with all other individuals in the United States who have ever put pen to paper. The article "Author's comments draw fire: Conservative writer Ann Coulter accuses a group of Sept. 11 widows of being 'self-obsessed.'" from the Kansas City Star has no trouble defining Ann Coulter as a "Conservative writer", but somehow we at Wikipedia are unable to use the term to group authors. "Veteran broadcast journalist David Brinkley dies" in The Hollywood Reporter describes how David Brinkley "added conservative writer George Will and later brought on Sam Donaldson as the resident liberal." Newsweek magazine in "Questions and Answers: Free Speech in the University", was able to open with a statement that "When conservative writer David Horowitz began placing ads in college newspapers across the country on why reparations to African-Americans were a bad idea a firestorm slowly ensued." And in "William F. Buckley Dead at 82", the folks at National Public Radio had no trouble reporting that "The New York Times website reports that leading conservative writer and commentator William F. Buckley has died at age 82." I would be happy to provide hundreds of further sources, using the exact phrase "conservative writer", describing the authors in this category. Sure, we're destined to hear the usual nonsense that there is some writer whose conservatism does not fit someone's arbitrary definition. That's a perfect reason to omit a particular entry, but an invalid excuse to toss out an entire, well-defined category. Then we're bound to hear that there is some confusion between notability and defining, which has even less applicability here than usual. If the purpose of categories in Wikipedia is to group similar articles, this CfD nomination, if successful, would only serve to disrupt navigation, deliberately and intentionally. This persistent disruption needs to be ended. If Wikipedia is based on reliable and verifiable sources, there is absolutely no justification for deletion, whatsoever. Alansohn (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The after-the-fact change in the nomination only demonstrates the utter invalidity of the original proposal. The current version still merits a Strong Oppose. There are people who write about politics who belong in Category:American political writers. The failure to recognize that there are American writers who write from a Conservative viewpoint, while there are those who write from a Liberal viewpoint, is proven false by the reliable and verifiable sources that have been provided, with hundreds more available. The failure to recognize that individuals such as William F. Buckley and Ann Coulter are undeniably "American conservative writers" is in direct conflict with the purpose of navigation via categories. Alansohn (talk) 16:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The change had nothing to do with your comments. It was simply targeting a more appropriate subcategory of the original targeted category per User:T. Anthony's suggestion. The original reasons are unchanged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nothing in my remarks claims credit for your backtracking. The original reasons are still invalid. Alansohn (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's fine, I was just clarifying because the reference to an "after-the-fact change" to the nomination could suggest to some users that more was changed than just the target category. As could characterizing the edit as "backtracking". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep For the people in the cateogy, this is defining. They make their living as writers, and specifically as writers of American conservative material. Put a stop to the nonsense of trying to delete everything the identifies American people by their policical activities and work--such deletions are trying only to make a point of some kind and trying to reduce the usefullness of WP in regards to current American politics. Hmains (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That mischaracterizes the nomination. I'm simply following up on the deletion of Category:American conservatives by deleting the subcategories of it. If we can't categorize American people as conservatives, we also can't categorize American writers as conservatives—it's that simple. Nothing says you can't create some sort of list, though. But to create categories that use the term is just to do an inappropriate end-run around the previous consensus decision, whether the end-run is deliberate or not (I'm assuming it was not, but you're the user who could tell us definitively). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The fact that there are ample reliable and verifiable sources supporting this category -- which you have studiously ignored -- demonstrates that this is a strong defining characteristic. The strategy of finding a weak link category to delete and then abusing that "precedent" to demand deletion of any other similar category has the effect, intended or not, of disrupting the category system by deleting categories that meet every possible definition of the category system. Can you at least attempt to explain just why reliable sources supporting the "American conservative writer" as a defining characteristic should be ignored? Alansohn (talk) 23:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Extended discussions of the rationale for deleting can be found in the previous discussions, linked above. There are also available sources that can be found that refer to people as "American conservatives" or "American Jewish conservatives", but they were deleted for the reasons discussed there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - The extended discussion there or anywhere else has no relevance here. I have supplied multiple reliable and verifiable sources to show that this is a strong defining characteristic. Try to at least make an effort to address these sources rather than trying to bulldoze this category to deletion by abusing past CfDs. Alansohn (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, but you're wrong. They are exactly on point, for the reason I initially provided: "if we don't categorize American people as conservatives, then we shouldn't do an end-run around this by categorizing American writers as conservatives." This was also the rationale for the deletion of the other similar categories that were deleted recently. I would appreciate it if you stopped using rhetoric which suggests I'm "abusing" past CfDs. If you can't see how they are relevant, I think you need to examine them again. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm sorry for standing in the way of your rampage, but I looked for reliable and verifiable sources to show that the category is defining, and I found thousands, with just a few provided. It's time to deal with the sources and stop with the evasions. Consensus Can Change and it appears that it has changed here. If you refuse to address the sources, it's probably time to withdraw your nomination. Alansohn (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Frankly, your tone and overall accusatory approach provides me with no desire to respond to your uncivil requests. (The short answer, though, is that sources use the word "conservative" in different ways depending on the source. It all goes back to the POV nature of the term "conservative" in American politics. For more on this, these issues are amply discussed in the previous discussions.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So it's the same "we can't dare call someone a conservative because there is no hard and fast definition that every person in the universe will accept" story. Have a gander at the ample reliable and verifiable sources. Every one of these sources had no trouble defining these individuals as "conservative writers". In Wikipedia, precedent has no binding value whatsoever on any other case; By contrast, reliable and verifiable sources are our gold standard and have number one standing in our Wikipedia:Five pillars. How about trying to address these sources and explaining just how they are POV? Alansohn (talk)
        You've gone through this rationale many times in previous CfDs, and I don't find it any more convincing here. My position remains the same. If you want to make a list that uses a POV term, that's usually fine, since citations will there be provided for each individual and users can easily examine what sources are being referred to for application of the POV term. This can't be done in a category in the same way. I know you believe lists and categories should co-exist, but I disagree when the name of the category is inherently subject to POV. (Incidentally, your blanket statement regarding "precedent" is also flawed, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        "You've gone through this rationale many times in previous CfDs, and I don't find it any more convincing here" Are you referring to your ability to simply ignore reliable and verifiable sources that contradict your demands for deletion? If precedent were unconditionally binding as you insist, you'd be able to simply whack away any vaguely related category using your administrative speedy deletion powers. That you must be here at CfD demonstrates that we need to reconsider this category and actually weigh the evidence provided. I have provided you with multiple reliable sources describing four different individuals as "Conservative writers" and showing that this is a strong defining characteristic. None of these are POV sources, nor have you explained why this violates WP:NPOV or the more laughable claim that POV is acceptable in lists. Consensus has changed here, because the sources support the category as defining. Alansohn (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Alansohn, the reason I'm not going to engage with you anymore in this discussion is because you regularly take what is said by others and then exaggerate and/or amplify what was said, and thereby you suggest that the person has said something that they did not. (There are multiple examples of this in the immediate paragraph above: "If precedent were unconditionally binding as you insist" (I didn't and don't); "more laughable claim that POV is acceptable in lists" (a misinterpretation of what I said, conflating a reference to a potentially POV term with POV actually found in WP text); "your ability to simply ignore reliable and verifiable sources that contradict your demands for deletion" (I'm not ignoring them, neither am I demanding). This is to say nothing of the other examples outside of this paragraph or the repeated claim that I'm "disrupting" the category system by nominating a category for deletion.) Whether this is deliberate or not on your part I don't know, but can only assume it is not. It's just the way you are, perhaps. And that way is not terribly pleasant to deal with for other users that are making good faith efforts to improve WP. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Let's focus on the basics here: Have you figured out how you're going to deal with the multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided here, which demonstrate that this is a strong defining characteristic? Alansohn (talk) 02:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        See comments above. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Which comments above address how you're going to deal with the multiple reliable and verifiable sources provided here, which demonstrate that this is a strong defining characteristic? I see none so far. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "conservative" does not, especially in the US, have a fixed meaning. It is possible for the same individual to hold views which are considered "conservative" on some issues while simultaneously holding views that would be considered "moderate" or "liberal" on others, e.g. a social "liberal" but a fiscal "conservative". As with previous deletions along these lines, categorization on this basis is problematic. Otto4711 (talk) 15:06, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most writers have a POV, but defining as "conservative" is not a universal - many issues polarize American politics and conservatives will split on many of them too so no one is going to have purebred credentials: take immigration reform, the $700 billion bailout, the death penalty, whether service members under 21 should be allowed to drink, and numerous others - it's difficult to find which position is the "conservative" one. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you thought of using reliable and verifiable sources? How do we know who is African American and how do we deal with borderline cases, say Halle Berry (whose article describes her as "only woman of African-American descent to have won the award for Best Actress") or Barack Obama (described as "the first African American to be elected President of the United States"), despite the fact that they are classic borderline cases. I am still baffled as to how we are able to discern the sexual preferences of every LGBT individual. The solution in all these situations is to rely on reliable and verifiable sources, not to resort to contortions and terms in quotation marks pushing a bias against sharply-focused defining characteristics. Alansohn (talk) 00:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem is larger than any one discussion. I think it is that some editors who hang around CfD trying to find categories to delete have assumed power beyond what they should have and create turmoil in the CfD process. Power corrupts and so it is doing so here. These CfD editors openly state and act on their belief that they know better than the WP editors of articles. In this case, the various article editors have stated that the people are American conservative writers. This should be all that needs to be said to place the article into this category--until and if a change to the article occurs that removes these statements as being wrong or otherwise unfounded. Instead, this clack of CfD errors say they know better and that all such statements in any such articles are wrong. What is wrong is that these CfD editors who, acting in a vacuum of interest, are out of control. Hmains (talk) 04:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~What is a "clack"? Is it anything like a cabal? If so, which one in the list are you specifically referring to and what users are in it? Or is this a new one not yet enumerated?~~ I realised you must have meant "claque", which answers my questions fully. Except who the members are: I'm dying to know, mainly so I can squash those crappy sycophants. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A good start is to look for editors who consistently vote to delete categories, regardless of their usefulness for navigation or reliable sources. Repeated claims of "vagueness" or "inconsistency" for categories they don't like is another sure sign. Editors who spend a huge percentage of their time at CfD, developing lists that can be used as rationalizations for future deletions has also been identified as a symptom. Mirrors also come in handy. Alansohn (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd, Alansohn, 'cos at Wikipedia:List of cabals#CfD Cabal you're cited as saying members of the Cabal ignore precedent and thereby make arbitrary decisions. Oops, sorry, I'm referring to the "Cabal", not the "claque". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD is just a joke, pulled by those who play the CfD game for a living, so I'll chuckle at the attempt at humor. I would have used stronger terms to describe editors who make a living out of disruptive deletion of categories, but "crappy sycophants" is an excellent start at self-awareness of the issue. Is the mirror helping in your search for squashing targets? Alansohn (talk) 02:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I'm in "the Cabal" but I'm not 100% sure because I never get invited to any meetings and I don't get the newsletter. Maybe that means I'm actually only in the "claque". (Oh look! There's something on TV right now about how Tupac Shakur and Elvis assisted the stub of the U.S. Robertson Panel in placing the blame for the 9/11 attacks on al-Qaeda rather than where blame actually lies—on the Rosicrucians headed by JFK and Marilyn Monroe's love child ... ) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While some writers may switch styles or fall in between, the label is notable and verifiable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. What exactly is the definition of conservative writer? We have no article so inclusion becomes POV. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 22 January 2009 (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 15:43, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People from Amqui, Quebec to Category:People from Bas-Saint-Laurent, Quebec

Nominator's rationale: Amqui is a town of less than 5 000 inhabitants - overcategorization Mayumashu (talk) 01:50, 17 January 2009 (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 most of them. No consensus on Category:People from Laval, Quebec, Category:Laval, Quebec, and Category:Laurentides, Quebec. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 05:56, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

Category:People from Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Quebec to Category:People from Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Category:People from Bas-Saint-Laurent, Quebec to Category:People from Bas-Saint-Laurent
Category:People from Chaudière-Appalaches, Quebec to Category:People from Chaudière-Appalaches
Category:Chaudière-Appalaches, Quebec to Category:Chaudière-Appalaches
Category:People from Estrie, Quebec to Category:People from Estrie
Category:Estrie, Quebec to Category:Estrie
Category:People from Lanaudière, Quebec to Category:People from Lanaudière
Category:Lanaudière, Quebec to Category:Lanaudière
Category:People from Laurentides, Quebec to Category:People from Laurentides (region)
Category:Laurentides, Quebec to Category:Laurentides (region) (to disambiguate from Laurentian Mountains)
Category:People from Côte-Nord, Quebec to Category:People from Côte-Nord
Category:Côte-Nord, Quebec to Category:Côte-Nord
Category:People from Mauricie, Quebec to Category:People from Mauricie
Category:Mauricie, Quebec to Category:Mauricie
Category:People from Montérégie, Quebec to Category:People from Montérégie
Category:Montérégie, Quebec to Category:Montérégie
Category:People from Laval, Quebec to Category:People from Laval (city and region) (to disambiguate from people associated with Université Laval, also in Quebec, but not in the city/region of Laval
Category:Laval, Quebec to Category:Laval (city and region)

Nominator's rationale: there are no other places named Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Bas-Saint-Laurent, Chaudière-Appalaches, Estrie, Lanaudière, Laurentides (region), Mauricie, and Montérégie, and and there are no other cities or regions named Laval, so the disambiguate ', Quebec' is superfluous/pointless. There is Université Laval in the province of Quebec but not in Laval city/region, so some disambiguate is needed. Mayumashu (talk) 01:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep As part of a pattern. All subcats of Category:People by provincial or territorial municipal area in Canada are named in this fashion. There is no valid reason to make this change. It is always helpful to this WP reader to have category names stand on their own. Hmains (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

as part of a potential pattern. Most cat pages, outside American ones as it stands, only use disambiguates when necessary. It is true that as they stand, aside from the ones from British Columbia, most of the subcats of Category:People by provincial or territorial municipal area in Canada do include the name of the province. I propose changing the ones there too that don t need disambiguates, although several seem to need them, especially for counties in provinces in eastern Canada, which share names with counities in the states and British Isles Mayumashu (talk) 04:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC) Mayumashu (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern exists; read it. This proposal to break the Canadian pattern uniformity just creates more work and confusion for WP writers and readers and serves no valid WP purpose whatsoever. Hmains (talk) 02:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give our readers and us users a bit more credit. Where there is ambiguity, diambiguates are added, but where there is not, they are unnecessary. That s the greater pattern that there is across wikipedia. Following the logic that a state, province, or county name be added to every place to allow readers to know instantly where a place is - what if the reader doesn t know that say Delaware is a state or Rutland, an English county? We should then list each place name by state, province, county and then country, just to be sure that nearly everyone then knows where the place being named is. I am against going this route Mayumashu (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with most of the proposed changes. Disagree with changes related to Laval. I believe there is little potential for confusion with the university. Also, "(city and region)" may in any case be overkill because the city and region are coextensive. There is a slight error in the nominator's rationale for removing "Quebec" here, because there is a Laval, France which, while a good deal smaller than Laval, Quebec, is not tiny. Slightly opposed to "region" disambiguation for "Laurentides." Given that the mountains are generally referred to in English by their English name "the Laurentians," the French word "Laurentides" will correctly be understood as referring to the administrative region. Joeldl (talk) 04:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all the "region" and "city and region" ones, as noted by Joeldl above, and because I don't see the need for that type of disambiguation here. Neutral concerning the rest, though it seems like needless papershuffling to me : ) - jc37 06:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all - per nom. Steam5 (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2009 (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.

January 17

Category:Lee Ranaldo

Category:GSM standard

Category:Mobile phone standards

Category:G30

Category:Estonian fascists

Category:EERE templates

Category:Bloody anime series

Category:American conservative writers

Category:People from Bas-Saint-Laurent

Categories:People by region in Quebec / Regions of Quebec