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:Go players by nationality and populate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:European Go Players to Category:Go players

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Individual Go players should be categorized by their nationality e.g Category:Austrian Go players, Category:Romanian Go players etc. This could act as a supercat for such categories (if renamed to Category:European Go players) but seems pointless. Tassedethe (talk) 23:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete do not merge If they are to be categorized by country, then this should not be merged. 184.144.170.217 (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Go players by nationality and populate a la Category:Chess players by nationality.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:35, 3 January 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Doctors Hospital (Augusta, Georgia) to Category:Hospitals in Augusta, Georgia

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Two articles for a category with little prospect of growth. Upmerge to parent which only has 7 articles. Tassedethe (talk) 23:47, 29 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 00:18, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Watersheds by ocean to Category:Drainage basins by ocean

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Yet again, watersheds is ambiguous. Rename to match parent category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2010 (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 first to Category:Drainage basins by country, and rename "Watersheds" to "Drainage basins" but keep current structure. This should address Hmains's objection, and should not prejudge against a nomination of the contents of Category:Drainage basins by country.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:05, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Watersheds by country to Category:Drainage basins

Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Afghanistan to Category:Drainage basins

Propose merging Category:Watersheds of India to Category:Drainage basins

Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Mexico to Category:Watersheds of North America

Propose merging Category:Watersheds of Pakistan to Category:Drainage basins

Remove Category:Drainage systems of Australia from this category since it is already correctly parented at Category:Watersheds by continent

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Firstly watershed is ambiguous. Second, I believe that there may well be consensus that these are best categorized by continent and ocean and not political divisions. Thirdly these are all very small categories at this time and it is not clear that they will be needed if the perceived consensus for by continent is sufficient. If kept, then these will still need renaming. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:46, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all to 'drainage basins', keep 'by country' category. Regardless whether the drainage basin crosses country policial boundaries, it is at least partly in each country and is part of each country's geography. The 'by country' structure is to remain for this geography navigation purpose. We do not delete the geography category tree structure from each country just because the country exists on a continent which has its own geography category tree. Same thing here. Hmains (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Watersheds by continent to Category:Drainage basins by continent

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the parent category since it has been determined that watershed is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:59, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom Drainage basin correctly defines the term for use here. Hmains (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2011 (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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:St Martins Property Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL. The company doesn't seem to own any other properties that have potential for articles. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: Added a couple of other relevant articles so the cat now has 4 articles not counting one redirect. The article references 5 other noteworthy properties that articles could be created about. Still a little small but viable. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:45, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- I suspect that we will find some other natable developments to list. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 30 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 00:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Amalgam Records albums to Category:Amalgam Digital albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match name of company per parent article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:14, 29 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 00:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Antitrinitarianism to Category:Nontrinitarianism

Nominator's rationale: To match current name of main article. Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (see below #Links to related nontrinitarian talk threads).--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nom. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, since Antitrinitarianism is a redirect page to Nontrinitarianism. Backtable _{Speak to me}^{concerning my deeds.} 23:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Links to related nontrinitarian talk threads[edit]

• Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 10#Category:Nontrinitarian denominations
• Talk:Nontrinitarianism#Entry_to_category:Nontrinitatian_demoninations.
• Category_talk:Nontrinitarian_denominations#Category:Nontrinitarian_denominations
• Category_talk:Antitrinitarianism#Candidate_for_merging.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:17, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People from Blackheath to Category:People from Blackheath, London

Nominator's rationale: Rename per head article Blackheath, London.-- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• WikiProject London has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Assuming that everyone in that category is from the place in London, and not one of the other places. Lugnuts (talk) 18:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Lugnuts. Simply south (talk) and their tree 21:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If some of the people in the category are from places other than Blackheath, London, then they should be removed from the category, because its scope is clearly restricted to Blackheath, London. If articles have been miscategorised in that way, then it simply strengthens the case for moving the category away from its ambiguous current title. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 29 December 2010 (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: Keep. Although the category has created a large backlog, the usefulness of it has been proven. Hugahoody (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles which may no longer need images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an administration category which, in my opinion, has created an unnecessary and burdensome workload. Articles are added by PhotoCatBot based on whether they have been tagged as needing photographs or other images. However, articles can be removed from the category if they have images since the request is fulfilled, or if they still require images since taken literally the category name suggests there is no need for them to be included. Myself and others have been working hard at this backlog of articles but the total as I submit this nomination stands as 6,860. I argue this is one category backlog Wikipedia could get by without. Hugahoody (talk) 16:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is useful, and it has a number of lesser seen impacts. Allow me to explain: When articles are tagged as needing images, alerts of various forms go out to all of the wikiprojects related to those pages. Removing the requests for images, which take a number of forms and are sometimes hidden, is not something many people do, and as a result, there are articles that have images but are still requesting images. By going through and removing the various templates and template components of articles that have images and are still requesting images, we are reducing and streamlining the workloads of various wikiprojects. As we all know, large backlogs are less approachable than small ones. If a wikiproject has three articles that need images, someone might come along and clear that backlog much more readily than if there were thirty requests. True, this category might not be as critical to the project as say the category "Unreferenced BLPs," but it still is important. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems useful to me even if just a single editor is working it, provides a useful revisit to long unattended requests. Dave Crosby (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (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 per option 1. Courcelles 00:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming according to one of the following 3 lists:

Rationalle: All the categories should be named by the same pattern. I have no preference for either pattern over the other; however, the name for the Greece category (Category:History of Greece during World War II) seems to be unnecessary. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support having all of same pattern; incline to "in" not "during" as it is shorter Hugo999 (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. My preference in order would be: in, during, and. Tim! (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also can we please change "The Netherlands in World War II" to "Netherlands in World War II" while we are about it. Tim! (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Tim. Also, what's with Yugoslav Macedonia? It was part of Yugoslavia during the War? Why the need to separate it? Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:36, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no problem sith sub-national units here. If you look at option 3, where the subnational categtories are all sorted by their national parent, you will find tyhat there are 6 other sub-national units with their own WWII categories. (In options 1 and 2, this wasn't always practical, if the national category has 1 patern and the sub-national unit has the other.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:29, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. And I don’t have a problem with a category for Yugoslav Macedonia in WWII, or for other parts of Yugoslavia ie Bosnia & Herezogovinia or Croatia or Serbia, or of Greece ie Epirus and Crete. All these countries or regions can have categories for their history generally or in a particular period. Hugo999 (talk) 22:19, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:History of foo during World War II These are all history categories with history articles so include 'history' in the category name. 'During' as many related catgories already use 'during' (such as Category:Military history of foo during World War II and 'during' seems to fit 'period of time' (history) better than 'in' Hmains (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2011 (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: relisted at 2011 JAN 5 CFD by User:Simply south. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:56, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Villages in Mull to Category:Villages in the Isle of Mull

Nominator's rationale: Rename. An opposed nomination from the speedy section. My rationale was C2B, which is "A rename enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices", since the parent category is Category:Isle of Mull and the article is Isle of Mull and the other subcategories of the main category use "Isle of Mull". This is the odd one out in that regard. The speedy discussion with the opposing comment is in the drop-down box. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Reading through the category, and off-site, such as http://www.tobermory.co.uk/, I get the impression that "Mull" is an informal shortening of "Isle of Mull". The encyclopedia should tend to the formal, at least in the titles and ledes, and I would think that all of "Foo, Mull" should be moved to "Foo, Isle of Mull". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. First of all, if you can find a credible geographical text book that calls Mull, "Isle of Mull" please let me know. "Isle of Mull" is generally used by tourist sites for commercial reasons. The article is only "Isle of Mull" as second best because "Mull" is ambiguous. If you observe, for example Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides you will see that "Isle of" is very much the exception with only Mull and the amusing "Isle of Ewe" in this bracket. There are over 200 Scottish islands of substance and only 5 that I can think of that are titled in this way (including Arran). As for consistency, there are two ways to look at that. We have "Villages in Skye", "Villages in Orkney" etc. etc. Why is it then "consistent" to have "Villages in the Isle of Mull". There is nothing ambiguous about this at all as nothing listed at Mull (disambiguation) is either likely to have one or more villages associated with it, or if it might, to have such a title for a category. Whichever way you look it there is bound to be inconsistency but in my view adding "Isle of" to categories such as this achieves nothing except inconsistency and the joy of having to type a few extra letters. Don't mind me however - I just write the articles. Ben MacDui 11:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that you created this category a few days ago, and at Talk:Isle of Mull that you are on one side of divided opinion on the name of the island. I don't have a decent geographical reference book handy, but the oed contains many entries for mull (eg. #2 "In Scotland: a promontory, a headland"). Is the isle of Mull an island of promontories? The oxford reference dictionary points me to "Isle of Mull". A google maps search for "mull" returns eight locations around the world, none being the island. A google maps search for "isle of mull" returns the island, labelled "Isle of Mull", with an option to look at "Mull, East Kilbride, Glasgow G74, United Kingdom". At Isle of Mull, the first labelled map, File:Ordnance Survey 1-250000 - NM.jpg, labels the place "Isle of Mull. So, your position seems not well grounded. Ths project is not aimed at tourists, but is a reference work that should tend to the formal, and certainly so in titles. In any case, categories exist to serve articles, and category titles should reflect article titles. If you want to change the title style, you need to do it first at Isle of Mull. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am aware of the other meanings of Mull, which was referred to by the Norse as Mýl. The relationship with the Gaelic mull is not certain - although in common with any number of other Scottish islands it does have various headlands. Mull, East Kilbride is a street. Google searches are all very well, but I prefer the texts listed here which provide a nod to "the formal". I am all in favour of consistency, and I suppose you could argue that it is better for categories to be consistent than nothing at all, and that the inconsistency of article titles is not our concern here. It is still an absurdly inconsistent outcome nonetheless. A further point. "Villages in Mull" I think you can just about get away with, but "Villages in the Isle of Mull" sounds wrong to me. Surely "Villages on the Isle of Mull". Ben MacDui 09:29, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it did occur to me, but given that I'd never heard of Mull before the 29th, I let it go. Villages in an isle definitely sounds wrong. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In view of the discussion above, I suggest Category:Villages on the Isle of Mull as an alternative, to address the concerns of those who find "in the Isle of Mull" discordant. However, since the head article is at "Isle of Mull" and an unqualified "Mull" is ambiguous, we do need to switch from "Mull" to "Isle of Mull", as has already been done for the parent Category:Isle of Mull and its other sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 3 January 2011 (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. Courcelles 00:14, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Lion King voice actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of performer by performance. We don't categorize actors by film or film series. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per many simliar CfDs in the past. Lugnuts (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cross-reference between two articles would be sufficient. No room for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:54, 29 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 00:15, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suitcase murders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't know about this. We don't have an article suitcase murder, but this seems to be grouping murders in which the victim's body was discovered in a suitcase, trunk, or other form of luggage. I can see some utility in grouping "types" of murders together, like Category:Murder–suicides, etc., but to group murders by where the victim's body was discovered seems like overcategorization to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An amusing juxtaposition of Category:Murders and Category:Luggage but not really worthy of a category. Mangoe (talk) 15:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Not amusing, I am sure, for the murdered people whose bodies got stuffed into the suitcase or trunk Hmains (talk) 01:45, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Can anything be amusing to a dead person? Deep philosophical ponderings ensue ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:52, 3 January 2011 (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: rmerge. Courcelles 00:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tug boats of the United States to Category:Tugboats of the United States

Nominator's rationale: See belowAcather96 (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom to match main article Tugboat name and content Hmains (talk) 20:53, 31 December 2010 (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. Courcelles 00:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tug boats to Category:Tugboats

Nominator's rationale: The space should be removed, the article does not have a space, and I can't think why it should. Should be non-controversial. Acather96 (talk) 07:19, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominated to match the parent article. Mangoe (talk) 16:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom to match main article Tugboat name and its content Hmains (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Rename as nominated. Same for Category:Tug boats of the United States, etc. --Doncram (talk) 06:27, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed As far as I know "tugboat" is the usage in all major varieties of English. . . Jim - Jameslwoodward (talk to me • contribs) 11:49, 2 January 2011 (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: Don't rename. Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 01:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Routes needing mileposts to Category:Routes needing postmarkers

Nominator's rationale: Both ((mileposts)) and ((kmposts)) feed into to this category, so the name should reflect that its not just mileposts being needed, since they may be kilometre posts needed. Postmarkers seems to be a unit-neutral name. Admrboltz (talk) 06:57, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. While "postmarker" is indeed unit-neutral, is there a WP:RS that indicates that this term is commonly understood by a global audience? Orange Suede Sofa (talk) 09:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I have no idea what a postmarker is; I do do know what a milepost is, even if it expressed in kilometres. Is this another US/UK thing. I am UK based. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:43, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – I too have never heard of the term postmarker. At present all the contents are supplied by ((mileposts)) and appear to be US. Occuli (talk) 09:53, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I am guessing that a milepost is a milestone. Never heard of a milepost or kmpost, but a milestone is a stone erected on the roadside. They were common on highways, before big rectangular boards erected high on posts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "Postmarkers" as a neologism solves a problem that nobody has. Even in the UK they seem to be called mileposts or milestones. Mangoe (talk)
• Oppose. A postmarker sounds like the job title of someone in a post office, and its use for mileposts appears to be a neologism. I have no problem with kilometre markers being called mileposts, since that's their common name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The closest term I've ever heard to postmarker is postmile, which is just California's name for its mileposts. – TMF 22:16, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. ----DanTD (talk) 04:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest Category:Routes needing distance markers or Category:Routes lacking distance markers. These should be neutral names. In England, I have seen milestones, cast iron milestones. Motorways have distance markers every 100 metres - in km. British overhead electrified railways have a plate on each gantry, with includes a distance element. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. The headnote for the category states 'This category contains routes that are in need of mileposts for intersections along the route.' i.e. it is explicitly for intersections/junctions which is where you see mileposts. It is not for distance markers which show something else. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2010 (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.