Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 24

< September 23	September 25 >

September 24

Category:Images of United States

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Superceded by umbrella discussion. ∞Who ?¿? 04:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know I nominated this recently, but the deferral of a decision seems to have been based on waiting for some sort of resolution from Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places), but that isn't going to happen. That page is about naming articles and was started before the category system even existed. Almost none of the discussion is of the slightest relevance to the naming of image categories. In any case it has been inactive for a month.
It is well establised that we use different formats in different subject areas, but with consistency within a category. Let's please just get on with things here on this active page. The current name makes it look like Wikipedia is edited by primary school children and the main United States menu is a rather prominent aspect of Wikipedia. So let's now rename it category:United States images to tie in with the format of all the other 48 subcategories of Category:Images by country. CalJW 22:03, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it should have been deferred to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), not places. --Kbdank71 14:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That page isn't adressing this issue, and is not currently active apart from my comments on the speedy renaming issue. Please let's take the decision here. In Category:Images by country it's currently 48 to 1 in favour of the form I am proposing. I'm not exactly trying to push an eccentric line. CalJW 03:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you're looking at the wrong category for the naming convention under which it was created. This category was created as a subcategory of Category:Images of North America, and the {{images}} message indicates it is part of Wikipedia:List of images. (SEWilco 16:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- I don't agree. North America should not have its own convention that overrides a global convention. category:Images of North America contains one other category, while category:Images by country is widely used. The other subcategory is also clumsily named, (and it isn't for Canada or Mexico). Wikipedia:List of images appears to be on its way out. And does no one care that the current name just looks totally crap!? People say "the United States" not just "United States". Surely that is not a controversial contention. CalJW 03:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't contain any other categories now because the other category belonged in the American category. CalJW 03:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course Category:Images by country has more entries, as all countries get lumped together there. By that logic, Category:Universe should be the only category. When working with country categories, obviously Category:Images of North America will have fewer entries than many other continents due to the number of countries in North America. Nevertheless, Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(categories)#Categories_by_country uses "..of country" or "...in country" patterns so Category:Images by country mostly contains categories which require renaming. (SEWilco 14:44, 28 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Rename as proposed Rename all the other non-standard North American ones too. Osomec 18:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per original suggestion. Carina22 17:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to "Images of the United States" following Naming_conventions (categories)#How to name the country. (SEWilco 15:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- There is simply no such naming convention. SEWilco seems to be under the impression that the section linked states that all national categories should be in the of form, but this is patently not the case. No convention for image categories is given on that page. X images is the de facto standard. CalJW 16:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Parent categories do not define their own de facto standards for the naming format of subcategories. All "subject by nation" categories are to conform to the same standard as all other "subject by nation" categories; we cannot have two parent categories using opposite naming standards to each other just because those were the more established norms in those particular category trees. If there's now an established policy in favour of "subject of country"; then this category cannot be renamed "United States images" in defiance of that policy just because the other national images categories are named that way; new policy trumps past practice. In actual fact, all of the other national images categories have to be renamed to conform to the policy. Bearcat 00:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category:United States images Bhoeble 22:58, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) is now policy, and is relevant, but for categories where there is no previously defined (as opposed to de facto) convention explicitly defers to here. Given this discussion didn't start as a discussion to create or change a general rule for subcats of category:Images by country, I think it may be appropriate to add another CFD entry proposing a convention ("fooish images" or "images of foo"). If the convention is to be "fooish images", we have the subissue of whether this specific category should be "United States images" or "American images" (which was what started the conversation leading to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)). As I recollect, using either "United States" or "American" as an adjective was generally disliked (by different groups of people, for different reasons), leading to a preference for "x of foo" (or "x in foo") formats. Perhaps it's time to have the discussion about whether "fooish x" categories should be "United States x" or "American x". If so, I think this should be at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories).
Oppose, although should this not be deferred given discussion above regarding Subcats of Category:Images by country? My rerasoning for opposing is as at above discussion and previous discussion. I do not believe the current name is confusing, and prefer it to become the standard for the other 48. Hiding talk 18:09, 30 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:India lists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who ?¿? 03:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into standard form category:India-related lists and delete CalJW 21:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. No argument. siafu 23:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Indian sportspersons

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who ?¿? 03:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicates standard Category:Indian sportspeople. I have removed the single entry. Delete CalJW 20:51, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. -- Reinyday, 22:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete Job E 6 01:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 23:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. James F. (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. Highways in New Jersey

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who ?¿? 03:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:U.S. highways in New Jersey already exists, and most of the similar categories are named that way (Category:U.S. highways in California) Rschen7754 20:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. A U.S. highway is a highway in the U.S. A U.S. Highway is a road in the U.S. Highway System. --SPUI (talk) 20:49, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
True... I fully agree with you but most of the cats have been created already :( --Rschen7754 21:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
They can be changed through this page - someone has a bot running to change them quickly. --SPUI (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If everything will redirect and it doesn't create a huge mess then that's a good idea. --Rschen7754 03:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as nominated. There is no point in having both categories, as there are highways in the US Highway system in both, and the subcats of Category:United States Highway system do indeed use a lowercase h. --Kbdank71 14:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, correct capitalisation is important. If necessary, sub-cat. James F. (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Culture-specific syndrome

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who ?¿? 03:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Culture-specific syndromes. ∞Who ?¿? 20:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Seriously, I did mean the plural last time. siafu 23:04, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested Bhoeble 22:58, 28 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

category:British Towers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 03:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The format conflicts with all the other 42 categories in Category:Towers by country so rename category:Towers in the United Kingdom. CalJW 20:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Job E 6 01:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 23:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Scots poets

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who ?¿? 03:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate of category:Scottish poets (which contains category:Lallans poets, Lallans being the alternative name for the Scots language). Creator requested deletion almost immediately but apparently didn't know how to go about getting it implemented. CalJW 19:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ∞Who ?¿? 08:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 23:07, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Lallans" may well be an "alternative name", but it's not a very commonly understood one (outside of Scotland), whereas "Scots" is well-known. Reverse merge, indeed. James F. (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- That just ties things up in knots. It is much better if these discussions stick to one issue. If you want to change the name of a category which is not the one nominated I think you ought to nominate it separately (but I will vote against). In any case, I should think that most people who know that the Scots language exists know that it is also called Lallans. Most people will just think Scots poets covers all Scottish poets. CalJW 03:49, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bhoeble 23:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, move contents to category:Scottish poets and category:Lallans poets. — Insta ntnood 15:15, 3 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Musicians of DR Congo to Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who ?¿? 03:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also see previous Cfr to rename similar categories. Previously redirected by Ezeu w/o notice, see their talk page for responses to this change. ∞Who ?¿? 19:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and delete the other one. CalJW 19:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Use Category:Musicians of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and delete Category:Musicians of DR Congo. Hiding talk 11:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 23:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Northern Ireland politics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 03:16, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename tp Category:Politics of Northern Ireland to come into line with Category:Politics of England, Category:Politics of Wales, and Category:Politics of Scotland. Neutrality^talk 18:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename CalJW 18:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. -- Reinyday, 22:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename Job E 6 01:25, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 23:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Carina22 17:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Abbeys in England

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The lead article is Abbeys and priories in England; 23 of the entries are about priories; the Welsh and Scottish categories are called category:Abbeys and priories in Wales and category:Abbeys and priories in Scotland. Rename category:Abbeys and priories in England. CalJW 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Neutrality^talk 18:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Job E 6 01:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 23:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:19, 27 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Exhibition centres in London

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 03:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this one earlier, but it would be better to rename it category:Exhibition and conference centres in London to accomodate things like the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre. There aren't enough to justify two categories and the division isn't clear cut anyway, so most of them would have to go in both. I will be creating category:Exhibition and conference centres in the United Kingdom in a minute. CalJW 17:54, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename at the request of the creator. -- Reinyday, 01:05, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Transgender-related topics to Category:Transgender

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 02:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think categories should avoid having "topics" in their name. I'm not thrilled with the form of the word (though it does match Category:LGBT). I would suggest Transgenderism, but that is currently defined as a political movement. Perhaps someone can suggest a better name. Note: I don't know a lot about this topic. -- Reinyday, 17:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Job E 6 01:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, rename as proposed. -Seth Mahoney 09:10, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:38, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 23:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Carina22 17:36, 27 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Topics relating to transitioning to Category:Transsexual transitioning

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who ?¿? 04:27, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think categories should avoid having "topics" in their name and I think "transitioning" is pretty vague by itself. -- Reinyday, 17:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Neutrality^talk 18:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Job E 6 01:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but I don't really like the suggested target (it's better than the current one but still reads slightly wrong). Better would be Category:Gender transititioning or maybe more generally Category:Gender modification; it's not about moving from being a transexual to being something else, but about changing from one gender to a different one. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Lulu; Category:Gender transitioning or Category:Gender discordance so that it could include topics from before the advent of major surgery. siafu 23:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to something else Renaming this cat to transsexual anything would be patently false, since not only transsexual people transition, but many non-transsexual transgender people as well. "Transitioning" is BTW the technical term, so Category:Transgender transitioning makes a lot more sense than the freshly coined "gender transitioning" or "gender discordance" which would describe something else, anyway. No need to re-invent the wheel; and who'd ever look up some newly coined terms like this? And I might add that the categories about transgender and related where done, right after cats went up, by a person not very knowledgeable and not exactly in good faith, either; so renaming some of them will be an improvement. That is, if they are renamed to something recognisable. -- AlexR 02:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that "transsexual" is too narrow, since it's only a subset of transgender folks (not "patently false" though, just narrower). Category:Transgender transitioning isn't too bad. It's a bit redundant though, unlike Category:Gender transitioning ('trans' prefixes on both words, and "itioning" isn't a word by itself). Category:Gender discordance is better than AlexR states. Gender discordance is a broader concept than transgender, but the former is basically a superset of the latter (Category:Gender disphoria is better/broader still). I still most prefer Category:Gender modification since can encompass a number of related behavior/phenomena/psychologies. "Transitioning" insinuates clear end-points: e.g. from male to female. Some trans folks are much more fluid in identities than that, moving in different directions at different points in life. "Modification" is less teleological and linear. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I only suggested Category:Transsexual transitioning because the category page says "Topics relating to transitioning of transsexual people." If that description is not inclusive enough, then it should be changed. I don't know much about this topic. I am happy to support remaning to Category:Transgender transitioning, Category:Gender modification, or whatever is most appropriate. -- Reinyday, 01:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Kindly note that this is not the top transgender category, but the one that specifically contains the articles that relate to the transitioning of transgender people. "Gender modification" is not only a freshly-coined term not, to my knowledge, used elsewhere, but also it is reminicent of "body modification" and it would therefore cater to already existing prejudices, while being not quite correct, either - people change their gender role but not their gender identity which happens to be the whole point of the matter. "Gender discordance" is btw not a broader term then transgender, but a narrower one, that is, when one just reads the words. It is also not a widely used term, if I am not entirely mistaken. Therefore I would suggest that people spend less time coining new terms and that we just go with the existing one, and that is transitioning. It is correct, it is appropriate, and it is well-established. No use trying to invent a new one. "Transitioning" btw does not imply a clear starting point and a clear end-point, it merely describes moving from one area to another, which is what those articles do have in common. The fact that there are vers fluid gender identities out there has nothing to do with this. Really, I see no reason whatever to turn a debate about an improvable name for a cat into a debate about what else is out there - those things that do not belong under this topic then belong elsewhere, but there is no reason to turn this cat into something else entirely. -- AlexR 04:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to take the narrowest meaning, the original rename proposal is OK then. Not all transgender folks are transsexual, sure; but those who are have transitioning topics. And in the cat as it exists, most of the articles relate to medical procedures (hence transsexual). So we could just accept the rename proposal, and leave it open to have broader cats later. I don't understand the point about role and identity though; both can change, depending on whom we're talking about. FWIW, none of the other suggestions are particularly novel; I've seen them all used (it's all a matter of whom you hang out with). Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:50, 1 October 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Municipalities in México State

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. ∞Who ?¿? 08:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid me created (and edited) this category with the wrong name. Current usage is Municipalities of X State. Apologies for that. Delete -- Rune Welsh ταλκ 11:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Osomec 15:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete at the request of the creator. -- Reinyday, 16:37, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete, yes. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment informed to speedy delete as creator. ∞Who ?¿? 18:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Neutrality^talk 18:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category already exists Category:Municipalities of Mexico State, just without the diacritics. ∞Who ?¿? 18:56, 24 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People with autistic traits

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete deleted as empty. ∞Who ?¿? 08:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sooo many issues... where do I begin? First off, its an empty category. Second, it doesn't really serve any useful purpose as there already is plenty of "speculation" at List of recognised people with autism spectrum disorders. Third, it is wide open for POV abuse - I'm just waiting for someone to tag Bill Gates with it. Fourth, there is already Category:Autistic people. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it is empty and redundant. -- Reinyday, 16:38, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Delete for all the reasons cited. This category begs to be abused. Janet13 16:45, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neutrality^talk 18:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Job E 6 01:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ∞Who ?¿? 18:33, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though at least it's not quite as bad as the hypotheticalCategory:People with sociopathic traits (or narcissistic or histrionic or addictive or blahblahblah). siafu 23:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Carina22 17:33, 27 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Railroad classes in the U.S.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 02:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was an idiot when I made these differently formatted from the others. --SPUI (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename at the request of the creator. -- Reinyday, 16:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Neutrality^talk 18:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to old to request speedy, may effect other users. ∞Who?¿? 18:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't understand. -- Reinyday, 01:33, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway → Category:Soo Line Railroad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 03:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't realize the company was actually the Soo Line Railroad since 1960. Let's do the discussing at Talk:Minneapolis, St. Paul and Sault Ste. Marie Railway, as that should also be moved. --SPUI (talk) 07:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename though I don't see how there will be enough content to warrant a category for this. -- Reinyday, 16:41, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Neutrality^talk 18:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Job E 6 01:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, though technically, if this is a big enough deal, a category redirect wouldn't be crazy given the historical name. siafu 23:21, 26 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Members of the Pan-African Parliament from Uganda

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus (no change). ∞Who ?¿? 03:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a comprehensive list at List of Members of the Pan-African Parliament where all members are listed. Members from Uganda will never exeed a handful.--Gonjo 06:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. Category is empty and articles could be placed in Category:African politics. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:32, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, useful long-term sub-categorisation. Also, erm, "speedy delete"? What criteria on Earth do you think it falls under? James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep the articles need to be in a Ugandan category and I have dealt with that. The fact that there is only one is simply a reflection of systemic bias. CalJW 18:44, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate, there are other subs in parent, was listed under Category:Pan-African Parliament, someone removed it w/o reason. ∞Who ?¿? 18:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Category:Members of the Pan-African Parliament and Category:Ugandan people does the job. A list (preferably on a relevant article rather than on its own) would fill the navigational gap better than excess categorization. Note that Category:Members of the Pan-African Parliament is not properly populated on its own; all members should be included before we start splitting off into national sub-cats. siafu 23:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh dear, I thought that line of argument was behind us. If we categorise Americans and Britons thoroughly, we should do no less for Ugandans. CalJW 03:14, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not following you. IMHO, unless or until there are sufficient articles in Category:Members of the Pan-African Parliament, I don't see any reason to split it up by country. As it stands, there are four national subcats and only the list article in Category:Members of the Pan-African Parliament , and each of the national cats contains only the bare minimum for justifying a category (i.e., five). There are 42 nations in the Pan-African Parliament, and many many more people than the 20 currently included; splitting now seems like putting the cart before the horse, especially since the situation hasn't changed since this vote began. siafu 22:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - If detailed categories are created now, articles can be correctly allocated as they are created. If they are only created in the future the articles will have to be categorised twice, doubling the amount of time spent on categorisation in the long run. Also, if I look at a list of names I don't know, I like a little guidance. If my interest is politics, I don't want to have to click on the Ugandan biographies at random to find the politicians. Finally, if we don't categorise in detail, the articles don't all get put in the right places - very likely they will only be in one of Category:Members of the Pan-African Parliament and category:Ugandan people, or only one of category:Poets and category:American writers or whatever. Precise categories encourage users to filter all the biographical articles through to the right location. CalJW 03:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To the extent possible anything related to the african union should be made to look like the European Union. This includes seperating PAP members by country. if people have a problem with that help by getting more info. User:Briaboru — Preceding unsigned comment added by Briaboru (talk • contribs) 22:10, 27 September 2005
Keep Bhoeble 23:02, 28 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Alternative Hip hop artists -> Category:Alternative hip hop musicians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 03:19, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Captialization and consistency. --FuriousFreddy 06:22, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. -- Reinyday, 16:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed Osomec 18:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is musician too narrow? What category would a hip hop dancer belong in, not being a musician? (SEWilco 19:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
- A dancers category I guess.
Rename Carina22 17:34, 27 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:British buildings and structures by locality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 03:17, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category was taken into account in the recent changes and is now inconsistent with its parent and arguably also with its subcategories. Rename category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom by locality CalJW 04:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nom. -06:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename. -- Reinyday, 16:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename to the suggested form but "by location"; "locality" is, well, not a word in BE, and we're meant to follow suchlike variations. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. According to the Shorter OED it has been used in this sense sense the mid 19th century. Searching The Times, the Daily Telegraph and the BBC shows that it is regularly used by all three. This category should be consistent with the others. CalJW CalJW 18:56, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Locality is a British English word and in any case has a slightly different meaning to location.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sports architecture in London

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 03:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the only such category for a city, but the standard form for country categories is "sports venues" (See Category:Sports venues by country) so rename Category:Sports venues in London. CalJW 04:10, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. This isn't the only category for a city. However, we need to have some consistency. The following categories for political subdivisions exist:
- Category:Sport venues in Philadelphia
- Category:New Jersey sports venues
We really need to decide on a consistent scheme for these, and any other related categories that may be added in the future. — Dale Arnett 17:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Sports venues in London. Job E 6 01:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as orginally proposed. Bhoeble 23:04, 28 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cities in the West Midlands

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who ?¿? 03:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three cities in the West Midlands (a metropolitan county of England). They all have their own categories which are in category:Cities in England and Category:West Midlands. Only the articles have been placed in this, and I would rather see it deleted than fix it. CalJW 03:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Seems redundant. -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unneccessary. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The West Midlands is the name of a metropolitan county, but is also the name of the region including that and several other counties. Delete this iff it is the county that is being referred to rather than the region. Grutness...wha? 00:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it is. CalJW 18:45, 25 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Music festivals by nationality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 03:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Surely music festivals don't have a nationality. Indeed many of them are decidedly international. Rename category:Music festivals by country CalJW 01:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nom. That's what I think ;-). -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. -- Reinyday, 16:46, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Job E 6 01:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 23:27, 26 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:British churches

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 03:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent with all but one of the other categories in category:Churches by country. Rename category:Churches in the United Kingdom. CalJW 01:15, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nomination. Churches are in a country, they don't have a nationality--people do :-). -Roby Wayne ^{Talk • Hist} 06:34, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. -- Reinyday, 16:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Rename as proposed. James F. (talk) 18:13, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 23:28, 26 September 2005 (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 category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.