Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 29

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

The result of the debate was keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT theatre in Canada to Category:Canadian LGBT-related plays

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Everything in the category is a play or plays by author subcat. Rename brings the category in line with the similar Category:Canadian LGBT-related films. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Er Buddies in Bad Times, the first one I open, is a company. Johnbod (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Figures, the one of the four I didn't open. Still makes this a small category. Cat isn't needed for the single entry. Otto4711 (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment (also for next item) - Should not LGBT be expanded. The initials mean nothing to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "LGBT" is in line with Category:LGBT and is in extensive use throughout Wikipedia. If you think the abbreviation should be expanded then it would be best to attempt to make the change from the top down and all-inclusively rather than considering in in the isolation of a single sub-subcat. Otto4711 (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Johnbod, and as a national subcat of Category:LGBT theatre. Why exclude LGBT theatre companies from a category in no immediate danger of growing overlarge? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Because if there is going to be an LGBT-related plays by country categorization scheme, then the country subcats should follow the Category:Fooian plays naming convention. There is no such categorization scheme currently in place and there strikes me as little need at this point to start subdividing the small (fewer than 50 articles) parent Category:LGBT plays, but I recognize the, shall we say, extremely intense interest in breaking down everything into smaller and smaller categories so rather than proposing the merger I really believe should take place I'm suggesting the rename to at least align the name with that of other similar categories. There is no large and widely accepted LGBT theatre by country structure in place under Category:LGBT theatre and maintaining a national division of a six-article parent category for a single theatre company article is classic overcategorization. Should there suddenly be an explosion of articles about LGBT theatre companies located in Canada then there is no prejudice to recreating the category but as it stands currently there is simply no need for it. Otto4711 (talk) 15:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:LGBT plays to Category:LGBT-related plays. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT plays to Category:LGBT-related plays

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Nominated previously but got muddled with another portion of the nomination. Plays don't have a sexual orientation. Renaming brings the category in line with similar categories like Category:LGBT-related films and Category:LGBT-related television programs. Otto4711 (talk) 23:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Otto and good sense. LeSnail (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all (including the missing "the" in the third item). Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in the UK to Category:Anglican archbishops by diocese in the United Kingdom
• Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in the UK to Category:Anglican bishops by diocese in the United Kingdom
• Category:Anglican bishops by diocese outside UK to Category:Anglican bishops by diocese outside United Kingdom
• Category:Anglican cathedrals in the UK to Category:Anglican cathedrals in the United Kingdom

rename per WP:NCCAT--AccountA (talk) 23:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the suggested names are unduly cumbersome. (There is a missing 'the' in both versions of the 3rd one.) -- roundhouse0 (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom and include "the" in the 3d entry. Snocrates 01:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Snocrates. Other then the missing 'the' these are clearly speedy renames. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:LR Ahlen players to Category:Rot-Weiß Ahlen players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:LR Ahlen players to Category:Rot-Weiß Ahlen players

Nominator's rationale: Old name for the same club. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom. – PeeJay 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:30, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as the main club article has been renamed to reflect the change of name of the club, it only seems sensible to rename the category as well. - fchd (talk) 12:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:SV Eintracht Trier 05 players to Category:Eintracht Trier players. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:SV Eintracht Trier 05 players to Category:Eintracht Trier players

Nominator's rationale: Two different names for the same team. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 22:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I propose that Category:Eintracht Trier players is merged to Category:SV Eintracht Trier 05 players, rather than the other way around to match the club's main article: SV Eintracht Trier 05. – PeeJay 23:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the specific details of German football club names often change - they've only been SV05 since 1948, for example - so it's often better to use more general names. ArtVandelay13 (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough. Support. – PeeJay 02:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:31, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC) Category:Chemical education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Chemistry education - The adjectival form should be changed to the noun, consistent with all other related categories the main article. Cgingold (talk) 21:53, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I am in two minds about this. The article is Chemistry education but there is strong case for changing it to Chemical education. There is also an argument that they are different, with chemistry education just dealing with the teaching of chemistry and chemical education being the study of education in chemistry. Several of the leading journals in the field have "Chemical education" in the title. The Royal Society of Chemistry uses chemistry education quite a bit, but says "The Education Division promotes the study and dissemination of knowledge of chemical education at all levels". Both the American Chemical Society and the Royal Australian Chemical Institute have a division of chemical education. Perhaps you could tell us which related categories you are thinking about so we can see if they have the same complications as the chemistry one. For the moment, I am inclined to keep this one as it is. --Bduke (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oops, sorry about that -- it should have read "consistent with the main article" (I've now corrected it). Cgingold (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: I agree with Bduke on this one; I work in the US, and the only term I hear is chemical education. I've thought for a long time that the article should be renamed. Walkerma (talk) 06:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I did just find the journal, Chemistry Education Research and Practice (published by the RSC), and added it to this category -- but that doesn't really tell us anything new. I see both terms are widely used, so I'm not sure how to resolve this question -- other than to say that the titles of the article and the category should agree, so one of them ought to be renamed. Cgingold (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Chemistry education. School classes (in the US at least) are called 'Chemistry classes', not 'Chemical classes'; school departments are called 'Chemistry departments', not 'Chemical departments'. Hmains (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That agrees with what I said about Chemistry education referring to teaching. However, when research is done on this teaching it is generally called Chemical education research. It is not simple. --Bduke (talk) 00:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak rename. In many other languages (Dutch, French, German), it is nearly always the equivalent of chemistry education, e.g., scheikundeonderwijs, enseignement de la chimie, and Chemieunterricht. That some English groups oddly use the adjective here is inconsistent, but can be solved by a well-placed redirect. Wim van Dorst (talk) 14:08, 31 December 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Rename per nom. Humorously, "chemical education" is a euphemism for drug experimentation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:50, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I thought about this one a while because it's nice to follow industry usage when you can. However, it appears that in at least some instances the compound noun formulation is common, so while "chemical education" might be preferred I don't think that it's a slam-dunk. The winning argument for "chemistry education", for me, is that there is no ambiguity: If a user sees "chemistry education" we know what it means, even if they're more familiar with the term "chemical education". But "chemical education" is a bit more confusing, it seems to me, to users who are not familiar with that term. So "chemistry education" wins as the lesser evil. --Lquilter (talk) 02:40, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment For what it's worth, the term "chemical education" is used more widely (at least in the United States) in the field; see for example the Journal of Chemical Education or the American Chemical Society's Division of Chemical Education. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:18, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Fictional towns and cities to Category:Fictional cities and towns
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Australia to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Australia
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in California to Category:Fictional cities and towns in California
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Canada to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Canada
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Colorado to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Colorado
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Connecticut to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Connecticut
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Egypt to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Egypt
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in England to Category:Fictional cities and towns in England
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Finland to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Finland
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Florida to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Florida
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Georgia (U.S. state) to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Illinois to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Illinois
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in India to Category:Fictional cities and towns in India
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Indiana to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Indiana
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Iran to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Iran
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Iraq to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Iraq
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Ireland to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Ireland
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Japan to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Japan
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Kansas to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Kansas
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Louisiana to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Louisiana
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Maine to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Maine
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Massachusetts to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Massachusetts
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Michigan to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Michigan
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Minnesota to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Minnesota
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Nebraska to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Nebraska
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Nevada to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Nevada
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in New Hampshire to Category:Fictional cities and towns in New Hampshire
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in New Jersey to Category:Fictional cities and towns in New Jersey
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in New Mexico to Category:Fictional cities and towns in New Mexico
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in New York to Category:Fictional cities and towns in New York
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in North Carolina to Category:Fictional cities and towns in North Carolina
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Ohio to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Ohio
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Oklahoma to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Oklahoma
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Oregon to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Oregon
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Pennsylvania to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Pennsylvania
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Rhode Island to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Rhode Island
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Scotland to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Scotland
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in South Carolina to Category:Fictional cities and towns in South Carolina
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Texas to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Texas
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in the United Kingdom to Category:Fictional cities and towns in the United Kingdom
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in the United States to Category:Fictional cities and towns in the United States
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Virginia to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Virginia
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Wales to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Wales
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Washington to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Washington
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in West Virginia to Category:Fictional cities and towns in West Virginia
• Category:Fictional towns and cities in Wisconsin to Category:Fictional cities and towns in Wisconsin
• Category:DC Comics towns and cities to Category:DC Comics cities and towns
• Category:Discworld towns and cities to Category:Discworld cities and towns
• Category:Dungeons & Dragons towns and cities to Category:Dungeons & Dragons cities and towns
• Category:Middle-earth towns and cities to Category:Middle-earth cities and towns
• Category:Star Wars cities to Category:Star Wars cities and towns

Nominator's rationale: Matching recent renames of similar categories for Mexico, China, Chile, Italy, and Sweden.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:19, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename. This will also bring them in line with their real-world equivalents, and make sense as far as standard priority order is concerned. Grutness...wha? 20:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. Having nominated other recent categories of this type, I wholeheartedly agree that this renaming process needs to continue for consistency with the real world equivalents. Doczilla (talk) 07:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: A vague and pointless category. As it is undefined, it could just be used to include any 'clever' people whose cleverness extends to more than one discipline. (As indeed the existing entries demonstrate). It would be possible, more or less, (with a bit of devious argument), to enter almost any human entry in WP under this heading. As it is void of encyclopaedic purpose, delete. Smerus (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Vague inclusion criteria. LeSnail (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a terrible concept for a category, like a cross between "jack of all trades" and "genius". --Lquilter (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. I suspect that it will not be possible to achieve consensus on terms-of-use for this category, so I can't realistically oppose deletion … but in any age where knowledge has become highly compartmentalised, I wish we could find some way of categorising those who have demonstrated excellence in a multiple of unrelated scholarly disciplines. Being a a polymath is indeed a defining characteristic, and the problem is solely that we can't see a way of policing the boundaries of its usage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It is (nearly) impossible create a precise definition of a "polymath", and it's even harder to maintain a list of such individuals. I don't believe it's worth the effort. Even if a good set of precise criteria are formulated, they will never be widely accepted because somebody's favourite polymath will be excluded. See the extensive discussion at Talk:Polymath. -- Rmrfstar (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's where I was coming from with my comments -- the Talk:Polymath page. I sympathize with BHG but practically speaking it's too difficult! --Lquilter (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, you're right, but I live in hope that I may wake up with a start in the middle of the night before this CfD closes and disturb all my husbands as I jump out of bed mumbling "Yes, a robust definition of a polymath!". I'm not holding my breath … --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How many husbands do you have? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; unless we lump everyone else into Category:Unimaths. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While having a category restricted to, say, personalities up to 19th century may be useful in my experience it won't work on Wikipedia. (How did Albert Schweitzer became polymath, btw?) Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 17:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:August Births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: month of birth is hardly a defining characteristic, and adding this sort of category to articles just creates category clutter. If kept, it needs a capitalisation fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, delete as per nominator.--Smerus (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-defining characteristic. –Pomte 09:18, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the cat appears to be a one-off created to lend an air of legitimacy to Andy Ewings, which is currently waiting out its PROD term. If this is kept, what's next? Category:Tuesday births?? Neier (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no point in adding one-twelfth of all bios (on average!) to each of 12 cats like this, sheer clutter. PamD (talk) 09:28, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowball delete. Completely pointless.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 07:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per all the above, especially User:PamD. - fchd (talk) 07:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Surgery tools to Category:Surgical instruments. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Surgery tools to Category:Surgical instruments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Surgical instruments. (The last thing I want is surgeons to start referring to their "tools" before they start operating on me. Eegh.) Snocrates 14:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, although a surgeon's tooklit does look horribly like a posh version of a carpenters toolbox. Saws and all ... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Spouses of U.S. State Governors to Category:Spouses of United States state governors. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spouses of U.S. State Governors to Category:Spouses of United States state governors

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand "U.S." and proper caps. All changes could have been done speedily individually but since there were more than one it came here. Snocrates 13:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename', the similarly-named categories for the spouses of United States Senators, and the spouses of United States Mayors have already been speedily renamed. For examples, see Category:Spouses of United States Senators and Category:Spouses of United States mayors. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Georgia Attorneys General to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Attorneys General. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Georgia Attorneys General to Category:Georgia (U.S. state) Attorneys General

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Standard way of disambiguating U.S. state from sovereign state of the same name. Snocrates 13:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - I agree. Let's be consistent and try to avoid confusion with the country of Georgia. --Kimon^talk 14:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I wonder if it shouldn't be Category:Attorneys General of Georgia (U.S. state). I realize that's probably at odds with the ordering of terms in the sibling categories, but it sure reads better. Cgingold (talk) 09:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:U.S. Ambassadors to Cuba to Category:United States ambassadors to Cuba. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:U.S. Ambassadors to Cuba to Category:United States ambassadors to Cuba

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match format of similar subcategories of Category:Ambassadors of the United States. Both changes could have been done speedily but since there were two changes to be made it comes here. Snocrates 13:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete both. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu short story writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Hindu novelists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete Seems like inconsequential intersections of religion and profession. Only one article in categories — the same one in both; at most could be merged with Category:Hindu writers, but I would tend to reserve that for writers who write about topics related to Hinduism. Snocrates 12:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both as OCAT and trivial intersection. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:LDPD member to Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Germany politicians. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LDPD member to Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Germany members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation and pluralize "member". Snocrates 12:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not defining. Being a member of a party is irrelevant, being an elected representative from that party is, unless we're ready to tag Democrat or Republican on virtually every US biography. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Germany politicians, to fit Category:German politicians by party. --Soman (talk) 11:20, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Germany politicians per Soman. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Liberal Democratic Party of Germany politicians per Soman. I disagree with Carlossuarez46; in some cases it is useful to categorise people by membership, usually where the party is small or extremist but nonetheless has some significance despite have few people whose career could justify describing them as "politicians" — see e.g. Category:Socialist Labour Party (UK) members, Category:Socialist Party of Great Britain members, Category:Socialist Workers Party members (UK) and Category:People associated with the British National Party. However, the Liberal Democratic Party of Germany appears to have been a reasonably mainstream party, with significant parliamentary representation, so this is not of those exceptions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:Skydivers of the GDR to Category:East German skydivers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Skydivers of the GDR to Category:East German skydivers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Comply with other similar nationality skydivers categories that use "Foo skydivers" and use "East German" since "East Germany" is the standard country name used in categories for the GDR. Snocrates 12:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:ARVN generals to Category:Army of the Republic of Vietnam generals. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ARVN generals to Category:Army of the Republic of Vietnam generals

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. Relevant article is at Army of the Republic of Vietnam. Snocrates 12:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per good reasons in nom Hmains (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:54, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lucan to Category:Lord Lucan

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category relates to the Earl of Lucan, a title in the Peerage of Ireland, a title best best for the 7th Earl who disappeared in 1974 after his children's nanny Sandra Rivett was found murdered. (In Irish satire, this disappearance is often conflated with that of the racehorse Shergar, a meme which now appears to have entered the British House of Commons too, but that's another day's work).
The category name is misleading because it could also apply to Lucan, County Dublin, a rapidly-expanding suburb of the ever-growing capital which will probably soon need its own category within Category:Towns and villages in County Dublin. Convention would suggest that Category:Lucan be renamed to Category:Earls of Lucan, but in this case that seems inappropriate because the title is best known for the missing earl who is nearly always referred to as "Lord Lucan", and because it also includes the nanny Sandra Rivett.
Alternatively, since there are articles on only 3 of the peers, plus the article on the title and the nanny (all of which are adequately interlinked), this category could be deleted per WP:OCAT#EPONYMOUS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing my preference to delete, per Johnbod's comment below. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Support - Lucan, the town in Dublin is a large and expanding suburb and needs this category name; after all Lord Lucan took his name from here. (I've no idea where he is btw). (Sarah777 (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You can't get off the hook that easily. You are still the prime suspect as organiser of his escape to an old cottage near Borris-in-Ossory … ;) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category not really needed for these closely grouped articles. Otherwise rename. Johnbod (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply looking at it again, I think that deletion is better than renaming, since the articles are so closely grouped. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'd support delete; Lucan says that's best too. Sarah777 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm saying nothing. Shergar 01:14, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If retained Rename to Category:Earls of Lucan. According to the page Earl of Lucan, six holders of the title have articles along with the heir of the 7th Earl, but this is nevertheless probably an unnecssary category, as long as each article is linked back to the page Earl of Lucan, which lists the ten individuals who might be in the category. Accordingly, this list is a sufficient navigation tool. I would thus not oppose a delete, assuming that we do not have categories for any other peers of the realm by title. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are no other categories by title for Earls in the Peerage of Ireland, and even in the more heavily populated Earls in the Peerage of the United Kingdom there is only one. There are several in Earls in the Peerage of England, but mostly for the more long-lasting titles such as Earls of Surrey, with 18 articles. I don't think we need this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus an Earls of category should really only contain the Earls themselves. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unnecessary eponymous family category. All of the Earls should be linked through their articles and/or a list article. Otto4711 (talk) 15:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete so some peer of the realm offs his kids' nanny and skips it to France or other warmer climes or maybe offs himself; on that a category is to be based? nope. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Beard Award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of people by awards they have won. The half-dozen award-winners here can certainly have this award listed in the articles about them, but this is not a defining award like a Nobel Prize. (Attention to this category brought by debate below.) Lquilter (talk) 08:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-defining award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:If.comeddies award winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete; overcategorization by award. Includes two comedian articles, and this award can certainly be included on those articles, but this award is not a defining attribute of these comedians. (Attention to this category brought by related debate; see below.) Lquilter (talk) 08:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Terraxos (talk) 16:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, non-defining award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge Category:Professional baseball teams in Pennsylvania to Category:Pennsylvania baseball teams. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Professional baseball teams in Pennsylvania to Category:Pennsylvania baseball teams

Nominator's rationale: A merge is appropriate because: (a) the new Category:Professional baseball teams in Pennsylvania in unnecessary because all of the articles shown in Category:Pennsylvania baseball teams are or were professional teams, making the two categories equivalent for practical purposes; (b) the merger would be consistent with the categorization used for baseball teams in other U.S. states, which (although not complete) are categorized as State baseball teams rather than Professional baseball teams in State. BRMo (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Don't need both if they're essentially the same list. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the separate category because the "Pennsylvania baseball teams" category was created for current pro teams in PA, not semi-pro or historical teams. There should be a separate category for those sort of teams.

JaMikePA (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category to unify current, pro baseball teams in PA, just as there are separate categories for current MLB teams and historical ones. I wish to keep the same distinction for PA teams, too. JaMikePA (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a few questions and comments: (a) Separate categories for professional, semiprofessional, and amateur teams by state would imply some very small categories (see Wikipedia:Overcategorization). What's the harm of showing all of these types of teams in the same category? (b) I just discovered that there's an existing category for Category:Defunct Pennsylvania baseball teams, which could be used for the historical teams. (c) Developing categorization schemes shouldn't be done separately for each state. I recommend discussion of any proposed changes to the geographical categorization scheme through Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. BRMo (talk) 18:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. We don't have this level of distinction for any other state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom & Mike Selinker. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following 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. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thelema portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:58, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Portal:Thelema was deleted on November 12. JPG-GR (talk) 03:56, 29 December 2007 (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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Nuclear-Free Future Award (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:OC#Award_winners, categories for awards should not be created except for the most notable awards, like the Nobel Prizes - this is not one of them. It is the most notable fact about many of the people included, but that probably just means they are non-notable and should have their articles deleted as well. Terraxos (talk) 02:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I would regard this category as at least as important as most of the award categories which we have on WP, and certainly more important than the following categories which seem to be sitting there quite happily:

• Category:Dream Job winners
• Category:If.comeddies award winners
• Category:James Beard Award winners
• Category:Kirti Chakra recipients
• Category:Mr. Basketball of Michigan
• Category:Podcast Award winners

In terms of individuals who have received the Award, many are university professors or members of parliament. Some of the most notable include:

• Helen Elizabeth Clark (born February 26, 1950) is the 37th and current Prime Minister of New Zealand. She is New Zealand's second female Prime Minister and has been in office since December 1999, entering her third successive term in 2005. In 2007 Forbes magazine ranked her as the 38th most powerful woman in the world.
• Gordon Edwards was born in Canada in 1940, and graduated from the University of Toronto in 1961 with a gold medal in Mathematics and Physics and a Woodrow Wilson Fellowship. In 1972, he obtained a Ph.D. in Mathematics from Queen's University.
• Hans-Josef Fell is a German Member of Parliament who framed the German Renewable Energy Sources Law.
• Jonathan Schell (b. 1943) is a progressive author and professor. His work has appeared in The Nation, The New Yorker, and TomDispatch. He is the author of The Village of Ben Suc (1967), The Military Half (1968), The Time of Illusion (1976), The Fate of the Earth (1982) (ISBN 0-394-52559-0), The Abolition (1984), History in Sherman Park (1987), The Real War (1988), Observing the Nixon Years (1989), The Gift of Time (1998), The Unfinished Twentieth Century (2001), A Hole in the World (2004) and The Seventh Decade: The New Shape of Nuclear Danger (2007), among others. -- Johnfos (talk) 04:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Johnfos, I sympathize, but three points:

(1) a category is not a recognition of "importance"; it is a recognition of a type of indexing information that is best handled with mediawiki's automatic indexing feature. Deleting a category is therefore not necessarily any kind of statement about the importance or value of an article or topic, or the concepts that article represents.

(2) Other stuff exists is not a great argument. The fact that we have WP:OCAT#Award winners is an acknowledgement that this is a problem area, and it appears to me that each of those categories should likely be deleted as overcategorization by award-winner. The impulse that leads people to create categories for everything that belongs on a list is borne out of a misunderstanding of how categories work, so we end up with a lot of crappy categories. Hence, OCAT#Award winners. Now that you've brought these to other people's attention, my guess is we'll soon see CFDs for them, too. But they don't help the case for this category. (I stepped up and took on two of them.) (update 1/1: all have been posted for CFDs now.)

(3) The very point that the people you list are highly notable people who have made multiple great contributions in the field in which the award recognizes, as well as other fields, argues against this category. A category is an indexing feature that should generally only be used to capture defining aspects of the articles categorized. I think of it as: If I think of this category, do I think of this member? If I think of this member, do I think of this category? Here, when one thinks of Helen Elizabeth Clark, one might think of her anti-nuclear work or her political career, but one would not think of her as a "recipient of the nuclear-free future award". She is not therefore defined by the award-winner attribute, and so it's not a good category for her; my guess is the analysis is similar for all the award-winners.

--Lquilter (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, overcategorization by award. --Lquilter (talk) 08:04, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only argument presented so far for keeping is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify - we seem to have been removing a lot of award categories lately. Perhaps some of the other examples given should follow. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom; non-defining award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 22:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jersey Jews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is very small (only one article) and would seem to have extremely limited potential. The whole category is generally a bad idea. Descendall (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - bad idea for a category, and unlikely to grow anyway. Terraxos (talk) 02:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - We have a Category:American Jews, this looks like it is contrary to WP:OC#Intersection by location. --Kimon^talk 02:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey is in Europe, not America. --Descendall (talk) 06:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! I should've read the single article in the category. :) I am now changing my vote to keep as this is part of Category:Jews by country, like Tim says below. --Kimon^talk 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:OC#SMALL as part of Category:Jews by country, unless the whole tree is nominated for deletion. Tim! (talk) 08:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Tim as part of overall subcategorization scheme of classifying Jews by country. Snocrates 08:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although neither Jersey or the Channel Islands are actually a country for most purposes, it should be noted. Johnbod (talk) 16:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consititutionally, the Channel Isles (and Isle of Man) are self-governing, but their foreign affairs are dealt with by the British Foreign Secretary. British subjects are frequently categorised into the constituent nations of England, Wales, etc. Jersey, Guernsey and Man ought to fit well into that level of category. Due to their modest population categories will probably not be large, but they should be allowed to exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:20, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Channel Islands Jews to give it a little more room for expansion. LeSnail (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose there might be one on Guernsey too, but this will mess up the parents (categories I mean). Johnbod (talk) 19:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, so don't bother, if it's too much work. But if the closer wanted to.... LeSnail (talk) 19:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename if kept. I thought this was about New Jersey. The current name is ambiguous. No opinion at this point on keeping. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Did you not realise that "New" Jersey took its name from somewhere else? Jersey and Guernsey are tax havens and may well attract wealthy Jews. This is thus a legitimate category. Whether the category should be Jersey or Channel Isles needs to be judged by the precedent of similar categories. That is an issue that needs to be discussed in a wider context. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unnecessary race/religion category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One article does not a category make (even if it is part of a wider scheme, IMO). --Kbdank71 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 22:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Los Angeles to Category:Radio stations in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Sacramento to Category:Radio stations in Sacramento, California

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in San Diego to Category:Radio stations in San Diego, California

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Atlanta to Category:Radio stations in Atlanta, Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Savannah to Category:Radio stations in Savannah, Georgia

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Honolulu to Category:Radio stations in Honolulu, Hawaii

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Boise to Category:Radio stations in Boise, Idaho

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Chicago to Category:Radio stations in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Des Moines to Category:Radio stations in Des Moines, Iowa

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Baltimore to Category:Radio stations in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Worcester to Category:Radio stations in Worcester, Massachusetts

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Detroit to Category:Radio stations in Detroit, Michigan

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in St. Louis to Category:Radio stations in St. Louis, Missouri

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Las Vegas to Category:Radio stations in Las Vegas, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Atlantic City to Category:Radio stations in Atlantic City, New Jersey

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Saratoga Springs to Category:Radio stations in Saratoga Springs, New York

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Fayetteville to Category:Radio stations in Fayetteville, North Carolina

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Akron to Category:Radio stations in Akron, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Cleveland to Category:Radio stations in Cleveland, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Oklahoma City to Category:Radio stations in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Altoona to Category:Radio stations in Altoona, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Philadelphia to Category:Radio stations in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh to Category:Radio stations in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Providence to Category:Radio stations in Providence, Rhode Island

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Rapid City to Category:Radio stations in Rapid City, South Dakota

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Chattanooga to Category:Radio stations in Chattanooga, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Nashville to Category:Radio stations in Nashville, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Abilene to Category:Radio stations in Abilene, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Amarillo to Category:Radio stations in Amarillo, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Austin to Category:Radio stations in Austin, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Corpus Christi to Category:Radio stations in Corpus Christi, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in Houston to Category:Radio stations in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in San Antonio to Category:Radio stations in San Antonio, Texas

Nominator's rationale: Per naming conventions and recently affirmed precedent (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 22 for assorted examples), the above noted radio station categories for geographic regions in the United States should be renamed to incorporate the name of the state, as their parent geographic categories already do. (It should be noted that there are additional categories that will need some re-tooling to properly fix names - this discussion includes only the "clean" ones listed above.) JPG-GR (talk) 00:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom, and established precedent. Terraxos (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. LeSnail (talk) 19:08, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all except Chicago per nom; Chicago's article is not at Chicago, Illinois, which is a redirect. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • However, it is located in the parent category Category:Chicago, Illinois. JPG-GR (talk) 01:38, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename All per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, including Chicago whose grandparent cat is Category:Chicago, Illinois and thus this rename is completely logical. - Dravecky (talk) 12:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename Category:American Colonial Peers to Category:American Peers. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American Colonial Peers to Category:American Peers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. As per the talk page, and in keeping with similar categories , eg Welsh Peers, Australian Peers, etc. Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 00:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - as a commentator mentions on the talk page, these were not all colonial offices, so the name is inappropriate. Terraxos (talk) 02:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but preferably to Category:Peers of the Americas to make continental coverage clearer. Johnbod (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment category is not marked with CfD notice. Hmains (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Clean up then rename to Category:American nobility This category is a mishmash, covering American royalty - sovereigns of independent states; princes of their royal families; chiefs of the Mosquito nation (ruling a semi-independent polity); and provincial governors of Spanish Colonies. None of these were peers, and should be removed to appropriate categories. Baronets of Nova Scotia were I think all British baronets, with litlte or nothing to do with the Province of Nova Scotia, except in a titular sense; they might possibly appear as a subcategory (probably with hundreds of members, if properly populated). When that is done little will be left, perhaps only cassiques and Lord Proprietor. Is that enough for a category? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• background The original intent was to populate this category with Canadian Barons, which are peerages of the UK but I am having a hard time finding them. It was to be set up exactly the same as Categories for:Australian peers, and Welsh peers so maybe a seperate Category for Canadian peers and then a rename of this to Category:American nobility would be in order, as I believe the term Peers or peerage is an entirely UK term unused in any other Monarchial system. Petedavo ^{talk contributions} 22:07, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are French peerage but none in North America. There were however French noble titles in North America. 70.51.8.9 (talk) 10:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but expect all sorts of people whose peerages did not arise from London nor pre-1776; Norton I anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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