< June 8	June 10 >

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 19th century to Category:19th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 3rd century to Category:3rd-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 4th century to Category:4th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 5th century to Category:5th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 6th century to Category:6th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 7th century to Category:7th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 8th century to Category:8th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 9th century to Category:9th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings consecrated in the 10th century to Category:10th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 11th century to Category:11th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 12th century to Category:12th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 13th century to Category:13th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 14th century to Category:14th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 15th century to Category:15th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 16th century to Category:16th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 17th century to Category:17th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 18th century to Category:18th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 20th century to Category:20th-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings established in the 21st century to Category:21st-century church buildings

Propose renaming Category:Religious buildings by year established to Category:Religious buildings by century

Propose renaming Category:Religious buildings established in the 13th century to Category:13th-century religious buildings

Propose renaming Category:Religious buildings established in the 14th century to Category:14th-century religious buildings

Propose renaming Category:Religious buildings established in the 15th century to Category:15th-century religious buildings

Propose renaming Category:Religious buildings established in the 16th century to Category:16th-century religious buildings

Propose renaming Category:Religious buildings established in the 17th century to Category:17th-century religious buildings

Propose renaming Category:Religious buildings established in the 18th century to Category:18th-century religious buildings

Propose renaming Category:Religious buildings established in the 19th century to Category:19th-century religious buildings

Propose renaming Category:Religious buildings established in the 20th century to Category:20th-century religious buildings

Propose renaming Category:Religious buildings established in the 21st century to Category:21st-century religious buildings

Propose renaming Category:Church buildings by century consecrated to Category:Church buildings by century

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As pointed out in another discussion, establishments is not correct here. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Buildings is not redundant since church is also used for congregations. If there is consensus to rename this without buildings, then prior to the rename all of the congregation subcategories and articles will need to be removed to minimize the ambiguity. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support The point is that these cannot be seperated, as building and congregation share the same articles. As often pointed out before, the American examples typically have lots on the contregation, whereas eg French & Italian ones deal mainly with the buildings; the UK is variable. For European ones, especially the older examples, "established" is often plain wrong, as an older building was replaced. So this is a move in the right direction. Johnbod (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the interests of clarity. There can be a parallel hierarchy for the dates that congregations were established, which already exists in part, e.g. Category:Protestant congregations established in the 20th century. I see nothing wrong in articles having two categories, one for the building date and one for the congregation date, whether or not they coincide. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That top level category seems to be Category:Christian organizations by century. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 15 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary, because eventually nearly all television shows will be shot in high definition within the next year or few and the category will overfill.

-MegastarLV (talk) June 2011

Delete Simply not usefulCurb Chain (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Neutrality^talk 14:58, 13 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Permanently stuck at three articles with no possibility of expansion. Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:33, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment: I listed these seven discussions separately on the off chance that some editors may feel that the categories for different franchises may have different issues so as to avoid possibly bogging down a mass nomination in "keep these three, delete those two, merge this one" types of !votes. If the community feels that these can all be discussed as a mass nomination then I have no objection to merging all of these nominations into one. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query – why does the nom not suggest an upmerge to the parents rather than 'delete'? Are these films not 'Slasher films' or 'Serial killer films'? Occuli (talk) 20:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell all of the films in question are already categorized in all of the parents. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An upmerge would obviate the need to check. Eg Basket Case 2 (below) is not in 'Slasher films'. Occuli (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the film's article (not even in the copyvio plot summary I just removed) supports inclusion in a slasher films category. Harley Hudson (talk) 15:42, 10 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Permanently stuck at three articles with no possibility of expansion. Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator SOXROX (talk) 19:43, 9 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Permanently stuck at three articles with no possibility of expansion. Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:30, 9 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Permanently stuck at two articles with no possibility of expansion. Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:27, 9 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Permanently stuck at two articles with no possibility of expansion. Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:26, 9 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Permanently stuck at three articles with no possibility of expansion. Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:24, 9 June 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: result. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Permanently stuck at two articles with no possibility of expansion. Deleter per WP:OC#SMALL. Harley Hudson (talk) 17:23, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no need for a category to keep track of only two articles. jorgenev 22:43, 9 June 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 to Category:History of the Scottish Highlands. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Highland history to Category:History of Highland (council area)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per the names of the parent categories - this history categories are in the "Hostory of Foo" form, and the Highland category had been renamed to Category:Highland (council area) per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 May 30#Category:Highland. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~, because Highland (council area) only dates from 1975 and most of the contents are about much older history. The category name works fine as it is for both old and recent events, despite the inconsistency with sister cats in Category:History of Scotland by council area. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Highland (Scotland) history, per comment about pre-1975, and the ambiguity of "highland". 65.94.47.63 (talk) 06:10, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose If a rename is needed, which I very much doubt, go to Category:History of the Scottish Highlands. Johnbod (talk) 10:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative rename; I support Johnbod's alternative which would match the article Scottish Highlands (a consideration raised in the nomination). - Fayenatic (talk) 13:54, 13 June 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 Category:Arab World to Category:Arab world; no consensus on the main nomination. The existence of Category:African American and Category:Slavic suggest that there is support for adjectival ethnic categories. But it is not at all clear that the two categories here are both needed, and if so, whether their contents are being divided correctly. A WikiProject discussion might help.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:48, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arab to Category:Arab world

Propose merging Category:Arab World

Nominator's rationale: Arab is a redirect to Arab people and it's an ungrammatical name for a category. The main article is either Arab people or Arab world. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Some recategorisation & changes in head categories would have to follow, but this would be an improvement in clarity. (As there is already a category:Arab World, I have added a merger of this into your nomination.) - Fayenatic (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, suggest new name to possibly be Category:Arabs if need be, since there is really nothing grammatically wrong with the name of this category, and since if the nominator were truly concerned with "grammatical correctness" he should have maybe suggested that this category be fixed and renamed as Category:Arabs, because "Arab people" is redundant and bad English, since nobody calls them that, they are known simply as "Arabs" (in the plural, or "Arab" in the singular and also in the grand singular as in Arab language) and Arab world refers to modern-day countries connected to politics. IZAK (talk) 07:00, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A category called Category:Arab world will be more clear to understand than Category:Arabs or Category:Arab (the categories inside are very heterogeneous). Category:Arab people is not a redundant and bad English but it is a way to clarify close categories as you can see in Category:Thai people or Category:Slavic people --Helmoony (talk) 16:46, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This issue was discussed very extensively over Category:African American, & this is how we decided to do it; there are many similar name forms. There is nothing in the least "ungrammatical" about it. Category:Arabs or "A people" should be the head biographical category. Johnbod (talk) 10:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: the precedent was this 2007 CFD which renamed Category:African-American topics to Category:African American. (Also for the record, that one did "[seem] a little odd grammatically" to the esteemed Johnbod at the time!) - Fayenatic (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It sounds incredibly ungrammatical, as the nominator notes, and is confusing, as Helmoony notes. Neutrality^talk 14:57, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: I now see that this has precedents like Category:African American and Category:Slavic, both in using an adjective as the category name, and in being an "ethnic group of X continent/region" category. Given that understanding, I am inclined to change my mind to "keep and repurpose". The existing stated purpose is not appropriate, as it relates instead to Category:Arab people (or Category:Arabs if that redirect should get reversed -- but let's leave that out of the scope of this CFD). What should replace that purpose as an explanation of the scope of this category? And should Category:Arab be a head cat or sub-cat of Category:Arab World? - Fayenatic (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Category:Arab must be splitted between Category:Arab World and Category:Arabs (or Category:Arab people as it's more clear). Because there is some sub-categories that deal with the region (Category:Arab media) and others with the people (Category:Arab diaspora). I remember that there is a template specially dedicated to categories than indicates some thing like if you mean .. click on .. and if you mean ... click on ... By the way removing existing sub categories will take just 5 minutes. --Helmoony (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Changing opinion to keep Category:Arab, but repurpose it as top-level ethnic category like the other precedents I mentioned above; rename Category:Arab World to Category:Arab world to match lead article, and make it a sub-category of "Arab". - Fayenatic (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just have one question, what other articles or categories will Category:Arab contain except Category:Arab world and Category:Arab people ? --Helmoony (talk) 16:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It should keep its current contents that do not belong within one of those, but also any categories that go wider than the Arab world (even if, in some cases, they might also belong within category:Arab world) e.g. Arab culture, Arab diaspora, Arabic language, Arabic studies (that's a new one). Have a look at the links above for Slavic and African American. There is scope for someone to make a project of tidying it up, e.g. proposing a merger of Category:Arab communities outside of Arab League into Category:Arab diaspora. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:11, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another category that would probably exist as a seperate sub-section is Category:Arab groups. I would also question the redirect of Category:Arab tribes to Category:Tribes of Arabia. Arabia is a specific geographical area roughly equivalent to the peninsula between the Red Sea and the Persian Gulf, but maybe stretching northward into the Syrian Desert. There are Arab tribes that have lived for over a thousand years in parts of North Africa. Should Category:Arabic be another sub-category of this?John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Category:Arabic languages should be in the top category:Arab, rather than Category:Arabic language which is a sub-cat of both that and Category:Arabic culture. (But most articles currently in Category:Arabic languages should go into a new Category:Arabic dialects.) - Fayenatic (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@John Pack Lambert : Not all Arab groups live in Arabia (ex. Arabized Berber) and not all tribes in Arabia are Arabs (ex. Nabataeans or Kurds). --Helmoony (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See also A similar discussion on Category:Yiddish (which was deleted and recategorized.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 29 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chief Justices of the Philippines to Category:Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of the Philippines

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the name of the just moved main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Justices" - this category is for the people who have held the office and should be pluralized along the lines of Category:Chief Justices of the United States. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This is apparently the correct term for the position, which is unlike that of the top judge in many countries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:37, 10 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:59, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. No prejudice against recreation if (when) more articles are made. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 9 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Haven to Category:Haven (TV series)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I suggest renaming to match Haven (TV series). Haven is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:44, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Categories should (almost?) always match the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As creator, I have no problem with this. I used this name simply because there was no reason to disambiguate. Unless someone beats me to it (I have sleep, then work, approaching) I'll switch everything over when I have some time. — Huntster (t @ c) 07:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename ConfusingCurb Chain (talk) 11:37, 9 June 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:40, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is overcategorization by shared naming characteristic. We don't categorize things for having been named after a particular person. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep: I created the category because so many notable businesses were named after this coffee house ownerNankai (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep too, interesting stuff, not found anywhere else on wp. If you were suggesting listify it may be a different issue. Bienfuxia (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Many things are "interesting" but nonetheless are not appropriate for categories per the guidelines. You haven't really provided a reason why the guideline should be ignored in this specific case. The information could easily be listifed and added to Edward Lloyd (coffeehouse owner), and I would not object to such a close. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Christ the effing "guidelines" again. I wouldn't object to it being listified, added to the main article, of course, as have said above. Let's leave it at that. Bienfuxia (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The effing 'guidelines'"? Did they pee in your Weetabix? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:04, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorization by name characteristic. Listify if desired but not as a requirement for deletion. Harley Hudson (talk) 05:51, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at least in regard to the German companies listed. Per Duden: Lloyd in German is a name for maritime insurance and shipping companies originating from Lloyd's coffee house. Therefore „businesses named after ...“ is incorrect, however „businesses named Lloyd“ would be correct. See: Duden online (German) Traveletti (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listified at Lloyd's Coffee House#List of organisations named after Lloyd's coffee house, now delete category for the reasons above. Anyone who is interested, please feel free to rearrange and add info to the list. - Fayenatic (talk) 12:28, 20 June 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.

June 9

Category:Church buildings established in the 19th century

Category:Television series shot in High Definition

Category:When a Stranger Calls (film series)

Category:Urban Legend films

Category:I Know What You Did Last Summer series

Category:The Dentist films

Category:Hostel films

Category:Basket Case films

Category:American Psycho films

Category:Highland history

Category:Arab

Category:Chief Justices of the Philippines

Category:BRICS

Category:Haven

Category:Businesses named after Edward Lloyd