Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 1

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 and standardize. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another one which escaped the mass renaming of sport by country categories to the "in" form. Rename category:Netball in New Zealand CalJW 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and add Category:Netball to the list of "sport in foo" categories at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 23:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename No reason not to. New Zealand plays the same form of netball as other countries. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename. in line with all the hundreds of others that have been changed. Bhoeble 12:52, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, for the reasons cited above. —Lifeisunfair 17:29, 10 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 18:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This subcategory has been unused since 22 June 2005, when it was deemed unnecessarily specific and removed from the {{merging}} template (in favor of the parent Articles to be merged category). Delete. —Lifeisunfair 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CalJW 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if not in use. Carina22

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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 18:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category was used in conjunction with the {{slashdotted}} template, which was nominated for deletion. The TfD consensus was to generalize the template, so I renamed it {{high-traffic}}. At the time, I expressed strong opposition to the inclusion of a category, and urged anyone in disagreement to discuss the matter before creating a new one or proposing that the existing one be renamed. It's been over two weeks, and no one has raised the issue, so I believe that it's appropriate to delete the unused category. —Lifeisunfair 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete What is it with some wikipedians and slashdot? CalJW 22:32, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per reasons already stated.
• Delete as per nominator. - TexasAndroid 15:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 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.

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 delete. --Mairi 16:38, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this in error. Was meant to be Category:Electronic album stubs. 80.203.115.12 13:20, 1 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 15:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians for a province of the Phillipines. Orphaned. Underutilized, and Category:Politicians of the Philippines is sufficient for every other province. Delete. -- SCZenz 08:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No need to delete.--Jondel 08:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh, uniformity? Avoiding over-categorization? It was orphaned before, with two politicians who were also in Category:Politicians of the Philippines; this isn't like an article where we're obligated to make something of it once we see it if the subject is plausible. -- SCZenz 08:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Joshbaumgartner 16:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. ♠PMC♠ 21:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Every Canadian province has its own subcategory of Category:Canadian politicians. Every American state has its own subcategory of Category:American politicians. I see no reason why the Philippines, which has more administrative subdivisions than both Canada and the US combined, should be treated differently. And "underutilized" is not a valid criterion for deletion — the validity of a category is determined by how many articles it can potentially contain, not by how many it actually contains less than two weeks after it was even created. Keep unless there's a better argument against it than this. Bearcat 18:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How many administrative subdivisions does it have? If it has very many, they may be small enough that they don't all make viable categories. -- SCZenz 18:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are 79 provinces in the Philippines. I'm leaning slightly towards delete. The creator of this category, User:Cavite, apparently came to Wikipedia on a mission, and creating this category was his first task. Coffee 05:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 23:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete But a clearer category might be legitimate, eg "Cavite local politicians" or "senators from Cavite", or whatever would be applicable. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In the absence of any explanation or integration into the rest of the category system. Bhoeble 13:01, 5 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 18:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The category is empty, and Category:Meteorology topics by year includes yearly and decadal categories to be used instead. Jdorje 06:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 23:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if it stays empty. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just tidying up. The framework that has been established is fine. Bhoeble 12:53, 5 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be merely a vanity "category" that doesn't actually categorize anything and only pollutes the encyclopedia. Cyde 05:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete immediately. Someone's idea of a joke, and it's leaving a mess everywhere (because the user is using it in their signatures and it is being applied to every discussion they touch). I've already had to clean up after this once twice. - Randwicked 08:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Surely there's a way to just speedy this silliness? ♠PMC♠ 21:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I have removed the offending code from my sig so yall can stop bitchin now.-- --(User | Talk | Contribs) 03:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voting for Immediate Delete after this nice little comment. --Cyde 06:16, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no possible ongoing usefullness to this one. - TexasAndroid 15:34, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Carina22 01:12, 5 December 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.

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. Martin 11:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbrev. jengod 05:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator. Carina22 15:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - The category is about women's rights. The person who created the category has a right to have the original name kept STopCat 23:49, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No they haven't. There is no personal ownership in wikipedia. CalJW 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 12:55, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for reasons stated. Sumahoy 20:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -There may have been a debate but I favor shorter, faster to type names.--Jondel 04:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per policy. —Lifeisunfair 21:11, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RenameMartin 12:59, 10 December 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.

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. Martin 11:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbrev. jengod 05:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nominator. Carina22 15:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 23:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for for reason given. Sumahoy 20:38, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Shorter Abreviations are easier and faster to type.--Jondel 04:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the decision has been made not to use them. That debate should be regarded as over. CalJW 21:20, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per policy. —Lifeisunfair 21:10, 9 December 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.

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. Martin 13:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbrev; add "riots" to conform with other national subcats in "riots" category. jengod 05:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 23:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. —Lifeisunfair 21:10, 9 December 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK, these two terms are completely synonymous (at least, it'd be silly to have differing sects of FSM), and I think Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is more inclusive and to the point, and less likely to get confused with Rastafarianism. --ParkerHiggins 05:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Wikipedia is not a social club. CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both-Ideally, as every kooky fad shouldn't really be in Category:Wikipedians. If there's no concensus to delete both I'd be okay with just doing what's proposed here.--T. Anthony 06:07, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Ob "Delete all Wikipedian categories" vote. :) - TexasAndroid 15:36, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete all other religions-categories (christianity, etc..) too. helohe 11:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Christianity is an actual religion with real history. Do you honestly think there are sincere and observant Flying Spaghetti Monsterists at Wiki or anywhere?--T. Anthony 01:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FSM has real history too and I see nothing bether in christianity that fsm does not have. And fsm is funny while christianity is not. And if there should be a god it rely does not matther if he is a old man or a Flying Spaghetti Monster as we could never detect or verify it. helohe 15:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is a joke religion and categorized as such. It was created this year it seems so you are wrong about it having a history. It is not recognized as a religion by any nation on Earth. That you "see nothing bether in christianity" is your choice, but irrelevant. Because whether you see good in something or not says little about whether it's an actual group or religion. I see little good in the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, but I'd concede they are an actual religion with a real history. This isn't one and I see no reason to think it will become one. The whole point of it is mostly to be a satire on Intelligent Design.--T. Anthony 05:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both or merge, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both STopCat 23:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't make sense. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nominator. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, same thing said in two different way serves no purpose. - Bobet 16:50, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Pastafarian Wikipedians into Category:Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians. I agree with the nominator that we should not have two synonymous categories, and that "Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians" is the clearer and less ambiguous of the two. —Lifeisunfair 17:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• If it must stay, Merge Pastafarian Wikipedians into Flying Spaghetti Monsterist Wikipedians (seeing as this cat has a template). In the same vein, we also have the Invisible Pink Unicorn Wikipedians, but no Jedi Wikipedians, even though this is surely more notable. - N (talk) 21:53, 11 December 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.

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. Martin 13:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Timelines of the history of the United States sounds to my ear as though there are multiple alternative timelines/histories. jengod 04:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 23:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per policy. —Lifeisunfair 21:09, 9 December 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.

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. Martin 15:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This categories and subcategories are not really about the history of the whole U.S. chopped up into state-size pieces, but for the most part about the histories of the individual states and state-specific events. jengod 04:49, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative Category:History of the United States by state. I don't like the plural in the proposed version. CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative I agree with CalJW's comments. The current category drops a prepositional phrase in the wrong place and the proposed change is too unweildy. Cal's alternative addresses both issues.--eleuthero 19:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support CalJW's wording. jengod 22:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CalJW's rewording. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CalJW's rewording. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original nomination. There is a distinction between state histories, and history of the US as it relates to states, and for the most part these articles are likely to be about the former. --Trovatore 01:56, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support CalJW's rewording. - Darwinek 09:33, 10 December 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.

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 --Kbdank71 15:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbrev. jengod 04:47, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose - as the original category is all encompassing whereas the proposed change suggests a history relating only to the States themselves STopCat 00:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. The objection raised makes no sense. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename There is no difference between "the U.S. South" and "the Southern United States". Sumahoy 20:39, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to Category:History of the South of the United States; this deals with STopCat's objection. Sumahoy, there is at least potentially a difference; "Southern United States" could be read as "the individual States that are considered Southern", rather than "the Southern portion of the country known as the United States". --Trovatore 01:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:History of the Southern region of the United States. This term is used by the United States Census Bureau. —Lifeisunfair 21:06, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The "US South" is generally what it's called. It's become a cultural term whereas "The Southern US" is more of a geographic one.--T. Anthony 05:50, 10 December 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.

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. Martin 19:24, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbrev. jengod 04:46, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 00:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per policy. —Lifeisunfair 20:58, 9 December 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.

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. Martin 11:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbrev. jengod 04:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 00:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Goodness there are a lot of these. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per policy. —Lifeisunfair 20:57, 9 December 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.

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 as to new name --Kbdank71 15:12, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear history could describe radioactive history, and that's no fun for anybody :) jengod 04:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative Does it need to mention weapons? Shouldn't nuclear power be covered in the same category? Rename category:History of nuclear power and weaponry in the United States. CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into power and weapons. Putting them together strikes me as part of an anti-nuclear-power agenda. I do concede that the split could be seen as biased the other way; I'm not sure there actually is a truly neutral solution to this. --Trovatore 22:36, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• There are no articles (at this point) about just power in this category right now, with the possible exception of the national labs subcategory. Maybe just go with nuclear history after all? --—preceding unsigned comment by Jengod (talk • contribs) 01:41, 2 December 2005
  • Well, I don't really think they're the same thing, and there could be articles about the US history of nuclear power in the future, so I'd really prefer to clarify that it's about weapons. --Trovatore 03:35, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's useful to have a category which combines nuclear power and weapons STopCat 00:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useful how? Useful politically to the anti-NP movement, who would like people to think of them as the same thing? --Trovatore 19:48, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative Category:History of nuclear technology of the United States--Vizcarra 00:05, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:History of nuclear technology of the United States, per Vizcarra's suggestion. —Lifeisunfair 20:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Vizcarra 's suggestion. SeventyThree^(Talk) 23:24, 10 December 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.

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. Martin 18:45, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Language jengod 04:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 00:28, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support somewhat reluctantly. Not sure it is better, but it will look better if it is more consistent with the others. Carina22
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, for consistency with other categories. —Lifeisunfair 20:51, 9 December 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.

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. Martin 18:31, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation jengod 04:39, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 00:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per policy. —Lifeisunfair 20:48, 9 December 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.

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 as proposed. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:35, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbrev. of US>>United States; alternative options are: Category:History of civil rights movement for non-heterosexual people in the United States or Category:History of civil rights movement for gay, lesbian, bisexual and/or transgendered people in the United States

• Unabbreviate US but not the other thing as it makes it too long and the full form is hardly ever used. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The first proposal - ie the one in the heading. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:History of LGBT civil rights in the United States. —Lifeisunfair 20:47, 9 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Storms is used instead. Jdorje 04:33, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete STopCat 00:31, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —Lifeisunfair 20:45, 9 December 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.

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. Martin 14:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation jengod 04:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 00:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per policy. —Lifeisunfair 20:44, 9 December 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.

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. Martin 18:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation jengod 04:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose STopCat 00:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -There may have been a debate about shorter names but I prefer shorter, faster-to-type names. Almost everybody knows that US means United States.--Jondel 04:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per policy. —Lifeisunfair 20:43, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RenameMartin 12:58, 10 December 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.

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. Martin 10:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation jengod 04:28, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. —Lifeisunfair 20:41, 9 December 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.

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. Martin 10:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation jengod 04:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sounds nicer. Golfcam 23:34, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. —Lifeisunfair 20:41, 9 December 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.

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. Martin 10:53, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation jengod 04:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. —Lifeisunfair 20:39, 9 December 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.

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 for new name --Kbdank71 15:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation; colonized America is not coextensive to colonial America; current title could refer to America as colonizer; and before anyone attacks the use of America to refer to the USA, there was no United States at the time. I believe this is the clearest and shortest way to name this category.

Comment--how do we distinguish between articles about the colonies that became the U.S. (which is what the category currently is) from articles about all the colonies in the Americas? older≠wiser 14:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An additional ambiguity to be avoided is distinguishing from articles about U.S. colonialism (Philipines, Puerto Rico, Iraq, etc.) As it is, the current category name could easily be misinterpreted as being about U.S. colonialism. older≠wiser 13:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a nasty one. The proposal is not an improvement as it opens up an accuracy issue which is worse than the abbreviation problem. Hard to thing of an accurate name that isn't an essay. How about category:Pre-independence history of the thirteen colonies? Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Just expand the abbreviation and explain what it is for in the category header. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that Category:Pre-revolutionary history of the United States might fit the bill, because I feel like that restricts it to a specific time, rather than a particular national dominion, which avoids the issue of Spanish colonial California and British colonial Oregon yaddayadda. (1) revolutionary rather than indepedence, because genuine independence was a few years away in 1776 (2) and U.S. rather than colonies, because the minute they revolted, the thirteen colonies ceased to be colonies. jengod 19:42, 5 December 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.

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. Martin 18:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation haters are coming--I can feel it. Might as well control the outcome. jengod 04:15, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Abbreviations are against policy. Carina22 01:12, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename with enhancements. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Histories of United States cities. —Lifeisunfair 20:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I like the name Category:Histories of cities in the United States better than Category:U.S. city histories. It's more formal. -- Clevelander 03:40, 10 December 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.

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 Do not rename -- Rick Block (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Australian doctors to Category:Australian physicians

Category:British doctors to Category:British physicians

Category:English doctors to Category:English physicians

Category:Hong Kong doctors to Category:Hong Kong physicians

Category:Indian doctors to Category:Indian physicians

Category:Irish doctors to Category:Irish physicians

Category:Scottish doctors to Category:Scottish physicians

Category:Singaporean doctors to Category:Singaporean physicians

Category:Welsh doctors to Category:Welsh physicians

This rename will bring uniformity of terminology to Category:Physicians by nationality, and it's better word choice anyway—"Doctor" is a title and applies to lots of non-medical people, but "physician" is an unambiguous word for a profession. --Trovatore 03:09, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I note that there's a claim at Category:Physicians by nationality that this use of "physician" is specifically American. I don't know whether that's true, but if it is, then change all the Category:Fredonian doctors to Category:Fredonian medical doctors. --Trovatore 03:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This usage is proper and was agreed on this page more than once. Physician is very ambiguous internationally and the category blurb says so in the plainest terms. Why didn't you take account of that? In the UK most doctors could go to jail for claiming to be a physician, because they are not members of the Royal College of Physicians. Local variants in category names are acceptable for English speaking countries when necessitated by differences in usage. A slightly less sceptical attitude to claims made by other wikipedians would be agreeable, especially when a little research would show them to be true. Renaming all categories, including the American one, to "medical doctors" would be acceptable. CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per CalJW. I recall this has been discussed before. I too would suggest that if uniformity is an issue then the term "medical doctor" would be the standard to aim for. Valiantis 14:45, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose If people are going to ignore the explanation, maybe we should go for the medical doctors option, but I'm not keen on it as it probably doesn't sound natural anywhere. Carina22 15:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment So how hard would it be to rename them all (including the ones now called "physicians") to "medical doctors"? I think that might be the best option, but there sure are a lot of them; I wouldn't want to have to be the one doing it by hand. --Trovatore 16:07, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • another idea actually, I suppose I'd be reasonably happy with a note in each of the "doctors" category explaining the linguistic difference and specifying that it's about medical doctors, not anyone who holds the title "Doctor". Bartlett's etiquette confirms that holders of doctorates may be addressed as "Doctor" (context may have been the outside envelope of an inviatation; not sure how general the advice was) so this is certainly not just an American thing. --Trovatore 22:19, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it's not just American to use the title "Doctor" for a person with a doctorate. However, in both American and Commonwealth usage the phrase "he is a doctor" would almost always be understood to mean "he practices medicine". If one wanted to say that a person had a doctorate, one would tend to say "he has a doctorate" or (dependent on the specific qualification) "he is a PhD". I'm not clear on what relevance this has to the re-naming proposal. Valiantis 14:21, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's true in the States, too, of course. My view is that "Doctor" is properly a title, used informally for an occupation. When thus used, it's not really ambiguous, just a little informal. --Trovatore 17:22, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose this nomination and support renaming the supra-cat to Category:Medical doctors by nationality and do likewise for these. -Mayumashu 15:26, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose and oppose renaming any of them to medical doctors. Use the local term and add explanations. Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the categories to change "doctors" to "medical doctors," for the reasons provided above. —Lifeisunfair 20:32, 9 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 18:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. It is one thing to have a list of R.E.'s GMies, it is totally another to slap this sticker into articles, which is a shameless promotion of a single POV. mikka (t) 02:43, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify. Lots of people value Roger Ebert's opinions, but this doesn't have to be a category. - EurekaLott 03:06, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV, and POV over who's POV we accept. The JPS 08:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless POV. Roger Ebert is less significant thant any of the articles tagged with this category. It's information polution.
• Delete Cover in an article. CalJW 11:20, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The actual list seems more appropriate on http://www.rogerebert.com than any page on here, including Roger Ebert. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:23, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with EurekaLott -- Ianblair23 (talk) 04:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV helohe 15:28, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, "The Great Movies" is significant because it comes from probably the most-read movie critic worldwide. Sure the list is POV, but so are the Oscars and the Razzies. Tempshill 07:04, 11 December 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.

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 -- Rick Block (talk) 18:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Throwing this up again; completely esoteric subject. Has only obtained one or two new articles in a few months. Apostrophe 00:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• That has to be the best category name I've ever seen. I'm tempted to keep it just on that basis alone. I instead abstain. Ha! Postdlf 01:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Two articles is enough, and I expect it will be expanded one day. CalJW 11:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you actually asserting that homunculi will become a common concept in fiction? --Apostrophe 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...and that has to be the best retort I've ever seen. I've always believed homunculi were a great source of humor... Postdlf 00:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per nominator. Carina22 15:44, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bhoeble 13:00, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is far too specific. There simply aren't enough fictional homunculi to warrant this category's existence. —Lifeisunfair 20:24, 9 December 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.