Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 27

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 nominated --Kbdank71 15:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Worldwide" is non-standard and redundant. Capitalisation is not appropriate. Rename Category:National trusts. CalJW 23:32, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Category:National Trusts worldwide does not appear to exist. Therefore, renaming not necessary. --Kbdank71 14:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC) Support. --Kbdank71 20:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a typo. Please reconsider your vote. CalJW 21:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems a pretty straightforward case.--Mais oui! 06:45, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above Honbicot 18:49, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 19:09, 31 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.

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 nominated --Kbdank71 15:07, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to the standard "in" form for man made objects: Category:Skyscrapers in Canada CalJW 23:28, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and add "in foo" as the convention for by-country subcats of Category:Skyscrapers to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as above --Quiddity 20:51, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 19:17, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, as above. E Pluribus Anthony 09:07, 2 November 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 nominated --Kbdank71 15:05, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The following should be changed to the standard "Buildings and structures" form to to agree with their parent and so that they are clearly inclusive of bridges, viaducts, towers, locks etc:

• Category:Calgary buildings --> category:Buildings and structures in Calgary
• Category:Montreal buildings --> category:Buildings and structures in Montreal
• Category:North York buildings --> category:Buildings and structures in North York
• Category:Ottawa buildings --> category:Buildings and structures in Ottawa
• Category:Toronto buildings --> category:Buildings and structures in Toronto
• Category:Vancouver buildings --> category:Buildings and structures in Vancouver

Rename all CalJW 23:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose all. The Canadian cats do not include structures, only buildings. - SimonP 01:47, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's one of the main reasons for the name change. It is arbitary for one country to apply different practices. Buildings and structures are grouped together to avoid doubts about what should be included. Where are the Canadian structures? I don't know, so the articles are less accessible than structures in other countries. CalJW 21:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Matches other "Buildings and structures" categories. --Kbdank71 14:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename so that any future structures have a nice place to go. Consistency == good. Radiant_>|< 00:44, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all so the other structures can be added. No reason for Canada to be different. Honbicot 18:48, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to broaden scope and arrive at same naming style. -Splash^talk 01:27, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 19:25, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all; also consider merging category:Buildings and structures in North York into category:Buildings and structures in Toronto, as they are one in the same now. E Pluribus Anthony 09:06, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all except Category:North York buildings. Delete that one and upmerge it back into category:Buildings and structures in Toronto where it belongs. Bearcat 04:34, 3 November 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 14:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is redundant, as its contents consist mainly of articles already in Category:Safety and Category:Fire alarms (subcategory of Safety). Additionally, these kinds of items are not exclusive to schools, which the category name implies. SchuminWeb (Talk) 21:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No argument. siafu 19:38, 31 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.

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 20:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned by Joshbaumgartner. Not sure if it ever had any contents besides the similar main article. TexasAndroid 20:55, 27 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.

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 20:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 20:08, 27 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.

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 20:24, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 20:06, 27 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.

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 to Category:Naval ships of Canada' --Kbdank71 14:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 19:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment FYI, I think what happened here was Category:Canadian naval ships and Category:Canadian Navy both got merged into Category:Navy of Canada. I suppose the current setup will do; note that the RCN has not existed since the 60s, so "Canadian navy =/= Royal Canadian Navy -The Tom 05:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Certainly these are redundant and should be merged, although Category:Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy may be appropriate. Additionally, as Tom notes, Royal Canadian Navy is only appropriate for vessels serving through the 60s. Since then it has been Canadian Forces' Maritime Command which probably isn't the est category name. Unlike the Nationalist Chinese vs. PLAN, there is no real break in continuity between the two, it was merely an organizational and traditional change. For the purpose of someone researchng the service of a vessel, there is no reason why a single category encompassing both the RCN and the following CF wouldn't do just fine. Joshbaumgartner 07:33, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per further discussions below, I think Category:Ships of the Royal Canadian Navy and Category:Ships of the Canadian Forces would be appropriate. What I had done originally was to simply collapse the category one level, as Category:Canadian naval ships existed as a category with only one subcat Category:Royal Canadian Navy ships, but this was only in lieu of a better category name for the group. Joshbaumgartner 08:10, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative Rename Category:Canadian naval ships to Category:Naval ships of Canada, within which there are separate RCN and CF cats. -The Tom 23:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative Rename as per The Tom. - TexasAndroid 14:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename, as per The Tom. E Pluribus Anthony 09:02, 2 November 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 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 19:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Agreed. Joshbaumgartner 08:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per above. E Pluribus Anthony 09:04, 2 November 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 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 19:05, 27 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.

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 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 18:40, 27 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.

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 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 18:40, 27 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.

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 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 18:01, 27 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.

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 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 17:59, 27 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.

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 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 17:52, 27 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.

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 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 17:49, 27 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.

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 14:53, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 17:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, Category:Dutch ships was rather broader in scope. This should be split into Category:Ships of the Netherlands and Category:Ships of the United Provinces to be correct. Kirill Lokshin 18:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, those ships that are specific to the United Provinces would be fine to include in a Category:Ships of the United Provinces, but there is no harm i having them within the Netherlands category, as many researchers of Dutch naval history will pursue the Netherlands before looking up the UP. Additionally, since the Netherlands naval history is traced back through the UP, it useful to have those vessels represented under the Netherlands.Joshbaumgartner 07:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. Radiant_>|< 22:58, 28 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.

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 20:22, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 17:42, 27 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.

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 to Category:Submarines of China --Kbdank71 14:50, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 17:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Another case of a temporary holding bin... The final destination should be Category:Submarines of China ... China does have some quasi-military or research submarines that may not officially be part of the navy, but not enough to warrant breaking it down into subs of the navy and other subs. Subs of China will do. Joshbaumgartner 08:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, should be Submarines of China or thereabouts. Radiant_>|< 22:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as category:submarines of China, with subcategories (category:submarines of the People's Republic of China and category:submarines of the Republic of China) for the PRC and the ROC respectively. Its present subcategory category:Chinese Navy submarine classes (and actually category:Chinese Navy ship classes too) is PRC-specific. — Instantnood 06:43, 29 October 2005 (UTC) Rename as category:submarines of the People's Republic of China. Create category:submarines of the Republic of China when necessary. — Instantnood 07:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Joshbaumgartner and Radiant. - TexasAndroid 14:08, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, technically speaking the Chinese Navy is still the official title of the ROC Navy (admittedly not used that often any more), the People's Liberation Army Navy is something different entirely. I'm not entirely comfortable with lumping the PRC and ROC militaries together under Category:Military of China either, though I suppose I can live with it as long as we're referring to China as a geographical region. Nontheless I'd have to insist that we follow the convention of Military of Korea and have seperate top categories for Category:ROC Navy ships and Category:PLAN ships respectively. -Loren 02:01, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Agree.. category:military of Korea is a good example to compare. Category:ships of Korea is arranged in this way too. — Instantnood 06:27, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Well, that wasn't exactly what I ment, I was thinking something like Category:Military of China -> Category: Military of (ROC or PRC) with each side splitting off into its own branches and categories. It doesn't seem to make much sense IMHO combining ROCN and PLAN ships under a single parent as they are run by two distinct governments. See Category:Military of Korea. -Loren 00:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see. ROC's predecessors had no submarine I suppose, therefore a general category for China is not necessary. — Instantnood 07:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and suggested rename, partially or wholly, to category:Submarines of China (as per Joshbaumgartner), category:Naval submarines of China, or category:Naval ships of China (or similar); the last is all-embracing; for parallel, see similar E Pluribus Anthony 08:45, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It should be renamed in line with naming conventions (categories) and naming conventions (Chinese). — Instantnood 09:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per wikipedia:naming conventions (Chinese). the proposal is not only pov, it is inaccurate. the navy in mainland China is not called the "Chinese Navy". It is called the "People's Liberation Army Navy". Only the navy in Taiwan is called the "Chinese Navy" (中華海軍) though infrequently now. We should keep separate categories for the "Republic of China Navy" and the "People's Liberation Army Navy". ---Jiang 09:42, 4 November 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 20:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 17:28, 27 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.

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 20:19, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 17:26, 27 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.

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 nominated --Kbdank71 14:43, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category name violates several guidelines. I would sugest replacing it with Category:Charismatic and Pentecostal Christianity. - SimonP 16:40, 27 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.

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 14:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 15:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, similar to Category:Dutch ships above; should be split into Category:Ships of the United Kingdom and Category:Ships of England. Kirill Lokshin 18:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, although I agree that an additional Category:Ships of England is appropriate (especially considering the existance of Category:Ships of Scotland. Joshbaumgartner 07:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. Radiant_>|< 22:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Includes ships from before the existence of the United Kingdom, and the distinction is important in this area. Category:British ships should be the parent. CalJW 00:53, 2 November 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 20:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 15:46, 27 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.

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 14:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned by Joshbaumgartner. Can't see any sign of where contents were moved, so it may have been empty before orphaning. - TexasAndroid 15:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It actually had one article: Vesikko, but that was moved to Category:Ships of the Finnish Navy. --Laisak 15:58, 27 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.

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 14:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 15:48, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is the whole Category:Naval ships going to be changed the same way? --Laisak 16:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much of it has already been changed. The changes were made unofficially, in the last few days. The user who did it has been informed of the CFD process, and has committed to using this process in the future. I just want to put the changes that have already been made up for vote so they can either be approved, and the old categories removed, or declined and everything put back how it was. End result, only Joshbaumgartner can really speak to how far he went in moving categories around before being informed of the CFD process. I'm just tossing these things up as I find them. And as for where Joshbaumgartner plans to go in the future, again, only he can speak to that. TexasAndroid 17:33, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This isn't consistent with the nomination of Category:Canadian naval ships to Category:Royal Canadian Navy ships. Especially since Finnish Navy Ship (FNS) is the actual ship prefix used by the ships. Unless all the categories in Category:Naval ships are renamed to the Ships of the Foo Navy format or Ships of the Navy of Foo. Category:Ships of the Navy of Finland would be better (if this applies to all of the categories) --Laisak 21:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I agree with moving all categories in Category:Naval ships to a Ships of the Navy of Foo format. In some cases, such as the Royal Navy or such it appropriate to replace the Navy of Foo portion with the official name of the navy in question, especially in cases where different navies have existed politically or chronologically within a single country and their differentiation is significant for research. Since Finnish Navy is apparantly an acceptable English translation for the official name of the navy of Finland, it is fine to have Ships of the Finnish Navy. However, I would oppose for example Ships of the American Navy, as that should be Ships of the United States Navy as that is the official name. Joshbaumgartner 08:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. Radiant_>|< 22:58, 28 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.

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 20:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More of Joshbaumgartner's category moves from before he was aware of the CFD process. Putting these up for confirmation or refutation. TexasAndroid 15:46, 27 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.

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 20:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• delete. All articles have been moved to Category:Doctoral degrees, which is the standard term and sounds much better --Trovatore 15:47, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I did the original move. -James Howard (talk/web) 16:30, 27 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.

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 --Kbdank71 14:32, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category has three articles and has no potential for growth since its a trilogy. Maybe we should start creating categories for LOTR and HP too. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 13:40, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and merge to Category:Inheritance, which isn't exactly overflowing. siafu 21:37, 31 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.

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 nominated --Kbdank71 20:00, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category and its subcategories should to be renamed to match the format of the other subcategories of Category:British sportspeople and the standard format for occupational categories in general. CalJW 07:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Snooker players of the United Kingdom --> Category:British snooker players
• Category:Snooker players of England --> Category:English snooker players
• Category:Snooker players of Wales --> Category:Welsh snooker players
• Category:Snooker players of Scotland --> Category:Scottish snooker players
• Category:Snooker players of Northern Ireland --> Category:Northern Ireland snooker players

Rename all CalJW 07:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. JW 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The same applies to the following:

• Category:Snooker players of India --> Category:Indian snooker players
• Category:Snooker players of Hong Kong --> Category:Hong Kong snooker players

Rename both CalJW 07:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment But surely "foo of the United Kingdom" etc is becoming more and more the standard in all other categories except sport. This seems a little odd. Why should sport be the exception?--Mais oui! 09:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not for people! And it would be ugly and unnatural if it was. There isn't the tiniest little trace of oddness about this. CalJW 14:05, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I note that Wikimedia Commons uses "People of foo" as standard: Commons:Category:People of the United Kingdom etc.--Mais oui! 15:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't Wikipedia Commons. Wikipedia commons is a less mature project and has many category names in bad English, or not in English at all. CalJW 18:18, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • So where would Category:Northern Ireland snooker players go? Changing United Kingdom to British pretty much precludes them, doesn't it? --Kbdank71 15:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not at all. British encompasses Northern Ireland for this purpose. Category:Northern Ireland people is a subcategory of Category:British people and the other Northern Ireland people categories are subcategories of the relevant British categories. CalJW 21:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Category:Northern Ireland people is also a subcat of Category:Irish people, which makes sense.--Mais oui! 06:56, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - suggested rename is normal usage. JW 14:17, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as common usage. Hiding talk 14:04, 30 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.

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 19:54, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be past tense - they don't commit suicide continuously or on a regular basis.   ajn (talk) 06:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename CalJW 07:16, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Buffyg 08:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. On Halloween... siafu 21:41, 31 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.

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 19:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be past tense - they don't commit suicide continuously or on a regular basis.   ajn (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename CalJW 07:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Buffyg 08:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, just to make sure this doesn't somehow get a 'no consensus'. -Seth Mahoney 23:59, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename John Smith's 21:05, 31 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.

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 19:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be past tense - they don't commit suicide continuously or on a regular basis.   ajn (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename CalJW 07:24, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Buffyg 08:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, just to make sure this doesn't somehow get a 'no consensus'. -Seth Mahoney 23:59, 29 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.

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 19:56, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be past tense - they don't commit suicide continuously or on a regular basis.   ajn (talk) 07:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename CalJW 07:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Buffyg 08:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, just to make sure this doesn't somehow get a 'no consensus'. -Seth Mahoney 00:00, 30 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.

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 nominated --Kbdank71 20:05, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just created category:British football commentators and category:British sports commentators, but very quickly realised that they are too restrictive. Summarisers are not commentators, and it would be useful to pull in the presenters too. We never use the term North American term "announcer". Rename Category:British football broadcasters and Category:British sports broadcasters. CalJW 05:37, 27 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.

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 nominated --Kbdank71 19:38, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per Joshbaumgartner's nominations below, parent category should also be knocked over to "by country" rather than "by nationality" as standardization in Ships of Fooland format means a country-based rubric. -The Tom 02:53, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename: This will make the category consistant with other similar ones, including subcats. Joshbaumgartner 06:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This was discussed before; have the issues from the previous CfD been addressed in discussion somewhere else? siafu 21:51, 31 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.

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 19:52, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to be consistent with other subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state - EurekaLott 02:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I deliberately left this one in place when I dealt with the other irregularities. Hawaii has architectural traditions of its own to a greater degree than any other U.S. state. See Hawaiian architecture. If you would like to create Category:Category:Buildings and structures in Hawaii as a subcategory that would be fine. CalJW 03:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose fork Keep Category:Hawaiian architecture to deal with historic Polynesian/colonial topics related to style of architecture and culture and so on, which would be listed as a subcat of Category:Architecture by nationality (or, alternately, a subcat of Category:American architecture), and then move some of the stuff over to Category:Category:Buildings and structures in Hawaii as a straightforward stuff-by-spot-it-stands-on cat no different than New York, Connecticut, Oregon etc. -The Tom 05:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree, but that isn't a decision which can be implemented as a result of this process. I'm afraid if you want it done any time soon, you will need to do it yourself. CalJW 22:39, 30 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.

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 nominated --Kbdank71 19:37, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to be consistant with other sub-cats of Category:Ships by nationality. Joshbaumgartner 01:03, 27 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.

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 nominated --Kbdank71 19:36, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to be consistant with other sub-cats of Category:Ships by nationality. Joshbaumgartner 01:02, 27 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.

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 nominated --Kbdank71 19:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to be consistant with other sub-cats of Category:Ships by nationality. Joshbaumgartner 01:02, 27 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.

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 nominated --Kbdank71 19:32, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move to be consistant with other sub-cats of Category:Ships by nationality. Joshbaumgartner 01:02, 27 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.

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 19:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category. Category:World War II military equipment name is more consistant with other military equipment categories. Joshbaumgartner 00:41, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. No argument. siafu 21:53, 31 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.