Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 24

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 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to remove potentially ambiguous abbreviation. choster 23:10, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Rename as per nom. Sumahoy 01:15, 25 January 2006 (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 17:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Not every hormone/endocrine disease is automatically "endocrinological" (i.e. diagnosed and managed by an endocrinolist). JFW | T@lk 22:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --CDN99 03:15, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --Joe Decker 07:44, 31 January 2006 (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 17:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Crystal clear naming conventions. Darwinek 21:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But it is incorrect to state that the naming conventions are "crystal clear". This is a subtle and complex area of policy. CalJW 22:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, should be Category:Organizations in the United States. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think not, look at Category:Organizations by country. Consensus seems to be "Fooian organizations". - Darwinek 23:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I don't know what makes something 'crystal clear', but official policy for naming conventions of categories explicitly lists 'organizations' under the 'nationality x' format, making 'American organizations' the correct format for this category. I may disagree with the policy statement that this should qualify the rename for a speedy, but none-the-less, at least for this subject the policy is clearly explicit. Of course, if someone wants to challenge the policy and propose changing all 'organization' categories to a different format, then that should be a seperate CfD. Josh 10:35, 26 January 2006 (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 17:30, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match the other subcategories of Category:United States law and the general convention that law categories take the form "Fooian (X) law" . Choalbaton 21:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Are You Sure that shouldn't be Category:American criminal law?? See just above... 12.73.198.180 21:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. A law is not a person. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed to match Category:United States law and other law subcategories. Nominate all or none for renaming to American. Sumahoy 01:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment law is a significant enough subject that we should reach a consensus on format for the subject and have 'law' listed in in the naming convention policy. Josh 10:42, 26 January 2006 (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 keep --Kbdank71 17:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: If correctly cross-linked to related categories, couldn't the same outcome be had by redirecting proposed alternative naming to this listing with its embedded history?

Does speedy renaming "bot" also convert category links from current articles?
RJBurkhart 12:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Appears to be a misplaced vote. Rmhermen 16:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC) - this refers to RJBurkhart's vote above, which was made on the category page and which I have just moved to here. CalJW 22:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what's there. Although note also that this category is currently the target for a pending speedy renaming of Category:U.S. Air Force Academy graduates. Tarfu92 17:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note - yes, I have just marked this for population by the speedy rename bot. It will take all the articles in US Air Force Academy graduates, cut and paste the categories so they have the correct naming, and re-save the article...effectively moving it from one category to another. As one of the closing admins for this page, I'm going to suggest this as SPEEDY KEEP as it will be populated momentarily. --Syrthiss 23:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per Syrthiss. --Kbdank71 14:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks. Agree with speedy keep. Tarfu92 16:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Syrthiss. -- DS1953 ^talk 04:41, 31 January 2006 (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 15:46, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name of the band includes "The", so it shouldn't be omitted. Esprit15d 15:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to correct form. Choalbaton 21:38, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The is often omitted in song names: you can say "A song by the Beatles", or "a Beatles song", but not "a The Beatles song."--Max Talk (add) • Contribs • 01:37, 29 January 2006 (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 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Previously deleted at CFD, undeleted at DRV, relisted on 14th at CFD with no consensus. Did I mention it's empty? BTW, I'll change my vote if someone populates it. --Kbdank71 15:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unfixed category. Sumahoy 01:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, we discussed this just last week. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 25 January 2006 (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 15:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting change to suit naming conventions already in use with the criminal law category. -- Longhair 11:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can't you just do that without a vote? It doesn't seem very controversial. James James 12:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. per nom--Esprit15d 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This does not reflect the conventions for law categories, which are very clear. I can't see how any of the three users above can have done any research into what the convention is before deciding what it is. I will nominate any incorrect criminal law categories for renaming to "Fooian criminal law". Choalbaton 21:25, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd love it if it were, but category naming convention policy lists 'law' specifically in the undecided category. Of course, if you've found something more clearly defined elsewhere I'd love to know about it! Josh 11:06, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The 8 similar categories are all "Australian X law" eg Category:Australian labour law. ReeseM 22:35, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Child of Category:Australian law not Category:Law of Australia. Sumahoy 01:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment note that this proposal is the exact opposite of the Category:Criminal law in the USA to Category:United States criminal law proposal above. We really should reach consensus on which form to use, list it on the policy page, and then all appropriate categories can be renamed per policy at that point. This act of moving one category one way while moving another is not an improvement. Personally, I think 'Law of Country' or 'Law in Country' would be preferable, as it avoids adjective problems while also matching up better with related subjects such as 'history', 'politics', 'crime', and 'law enforcement', all of which are already defined by policy. Josh 10:50, 26 January 2006 (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 15:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blanked and tagged afd (without a rationale) by Lord Falcon on January 16, presumeably because it's redundant to Category:F-Zero series. Already emptied. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No problem. Golfcam 05:11, 26 January 2006 (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 15:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per the misplaced and orphaned afd. Already emptied. Neutral. —Cryptic (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Sumahoy 01:15, 25 January 2006 (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 15:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure whether anyone other than UEFA hands out stars to stadiums, but it won't do any harm to give these two categories clearer names.

• Category:4 star stadiums --> category:UEFA 4 star stadiums
• Category:5 star stadiums --> category:UEFA 5 star stadiums
• Rename both Choalbaton 07:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should the new names be category:Union of European Football Associations 4 star stadiums & category:Union of European Football Associations 5 star stadiums to eliminate the sports appreviations, like we are doing for other cats? Vegaswikian 00:46, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed The full name of UEFA is virtually never used. I read about football everyday but I didn't know what it stands for. The anti-abbreviation policy should not be used to create obscurity. CalJW 01:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but spell out "4" as "four". I have no opinion on whether or not to spell out "uefa". Radiant_>|< 11:29, 25 January 2006 (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 15:28, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems arbitrary, subjective and unneeded... title is awkward too and should probably be renamed if kept. --W.marsh 05:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Inherently POV. Despite being a very young category, many of the cities there are not "major" by any reasonable criteria. Greensboro, NC and Toledo, OH but not Los Angeles or Houston? The answer isn't to populate the category; only deletion can save us now. If for some bizarre reason the cat. is kept, it should be Category:Major cities in the United States. -- D.M. ^(talk) 06:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pov. Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States covers some of the same ground. Choalbaton 07:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is a much better answer than my getting upset because my favorite city was removed this AM... -Jcbarr 12:40, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, I think there is a difference between Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States and major or large cities. You can for example have metropolitan areas like the Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News, VA-NC MSA or Huntsville-Decatur Metropolitan Area that are metropolitan areas without having any very large cities that are a part of them. I do recognize that the wording of U.S. major cities is awkward, so I suggest renaming it to "U.S. cities with more that 450,000 or 500,000 people," or something that could be checked very quickly to see if it falls in the category and therefore can be removed. Major cities are objective, but a major city according to population is not. Vertigo700 17:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, I agree with Vertigo700. --Lukobe 19:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This sort of information is better conveyed by a list, and United States metropolitan area and List of United States metropolitan statistical areas by population already cover that ground. - EurekaLott 19:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like I already said, I disagree that United States metropolitan area covers that ground. There is a difference between metropolitan areas in general, and metropolitan areas that have large central cities as their core. Lists are not attached to city pages and I think a category of cities with populations above 500,000 makes sense. If this category gets deleted instead of renamed, I will likely create one as such. Vertigo700 20:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, wrong list. I should've linked to List of United States cities by population. - EurekaLott 20:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I said it covers some of the same ground, which it does. Most of it actually. Choalbaton 21:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete And I don't like the idea of categorising by population either. Firstly it won't be fully and consistently up to date. Secondly, no one else takes city limits as literally as Americans so the categories would mislead a lot of non-Americans who would assume the ranges stated were for urban areas or metros. CalJW 22:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arbitary and pov. Sumahoy 01:14, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, arbitrary. Radiant_>|< 11:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete arbitary. Bhoeble 12:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete arbitrary Josh 22:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No problem. Golfcam 05:12, 26 January 2006 (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 15:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Airlines of Macao to Category:Airlines of Macau
• Category:Bridges in Macao to Category:Bridges in Macau
• Category:Culture of Macao to Category:Culture of Macau
• Category:Economy of Macao to Category:Economy of Macau
• Category:Education in Macao to Category:Education in Macau
• Category:Freguesias of Macao to Category:Freguesias of Macau
• Category:Geography of Macao to Category:Geography of Macau
• Category:History of Macao to Category:History of Macau
• Category:Languages of Macao to Category:Languages of Macau
• Category:Macao attractions to Category:Macau attractions
• Category:Macao Peninsula to Category:Macau Peninsula
• Category:People from Macao to Category:People from Macau
• Category:Religion in Macao to Category:Religion in Macau
• Category:Tourism in Macao to Category:Tourism in Macau

For consistency with the parent category, Category:Macau, and article, Macau, and a number of other existing categories. Alai 05:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this way as it's simplest. Though I don't care all that much about 'o' versus 'u', expect an uproar from someone, *ahem*, who prefers the 'o' spelling. SchmuckyTheCat 06:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. per nom--Esprit15d 16:00, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The Macanese government officially uses the -o spelling in English [1]. See also the discussion at talk:Macau#Spelling and #Confusion about names. We are not in a position to ban the use of -o for page titles on Wikipedia. — Instantnood 17:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Well, it ought to be consistent, anyhow. If there's a semi-official English spelling, then shouldn't the parent cats be renamed? Deborah-jl _Talk 23:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope, as the policy is to use the most common name, not the (semi-)official name. You're certainly right it should be consistent one way or the other, of course. Instant, please see the appropriate category naming convention, which makes it clear we are in such a position (as you over-colourfully characterise it). Alai 04:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps in some parts of the world -u is more common. Generally speaking, nonetheless, we've little evidence that the -u spelling is overwhelmingly more common than -o. The Canadian government, for instance, uses -o predominantly (118 000 versus 940 as at 20:02, January 27, 2006, UTC). The British Consulate-General, Hong Kong and other webpages of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office spells -o too ([2] [3] [4] [5]). There are more Canadian sites (those end with .ca) using -o than -u (503 000 versus 397 000). — Instantnood 07:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • 653 000 versus 210 000 (or 642 000 versus 199 000 by exclusing each other) as at 09:13, January 28, 2006, UTC. — Instantnood 09:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True. But I don't think it must be consistent, when both spellings are popularly used, cf commonwealth vs American spellings on Wikipedia. There are many categories which names are not spelt in the same way as their parent or children categories, or the corresponding main articles do. — Instantnood 07:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • US vs British spelling isn't at all comparable here. Those are protected by wikipedia style guidlines; ad hoc inconsistencies like these are most definitely not. I should be most glad to see a list of inconsistently named categories, the better to fix same. Alai 19:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed for consistency. Bhoeble 12:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I always prefer the spelling of Macau to Macao as it is more common.--HeiChon~XiJun 16:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Seems to be the more common choice. Choalbaton 20:12, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Instantnood has presented fairly convincing evidence that Macao predominates over Macau in Canadian and at least some British usage. I just checked the New York Times. For 1981 to present, 462 results for Macao (excluding results for Punta Macao, Dominican Republic) vs. 77 results for Macau. Restricting to past year, results are 20 Macao vs. 8 Macau: Macau's a bit more common, but still outnumbered over 2 to 1. Some of the Macau results used Macao for the city/region, but Macau as part of the name of a hotel. The latter show usage is complex, but nonetheless Macao seems to be by far the more common usage in English. Thus if policy is to use the most common name, we have to go with Macao.--MayerG 03:17, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for consistency. Google searches on .uk and .bbc.co.uk support Macau, by the way. Kusma (討論) 06:38, 1 February 2006 (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 15:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation and to be like the other Category:National Football League categories. --J. Nguyen 03:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename as per nom. CalJW 22:46, 24 January 2006 (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 15:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another abbreviation to get rid off. Reformatting to match category:Counties of the United States is also desirable. Sumahoy 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 03:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Esprit15d 15:58, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• rename as per nom. CalJW 22:50, 24 January 2006 (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 15:19, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"the history of" doesn't seem to add anything much. Any violent incidents in the U.S. about which we have articles are historical, even if they took place this morning. Sumahoy 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 03:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:37, 24 January 2006 (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 15:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The awkwardness of this name has been commented on on its talk page and the suggested re-name comes from there. The current name is a little too dramatic and shades into pov. As of right now the category also has too much content - some of it would be more appropriate in the general African-American history category or the U.S. social history category I'm going to start. I'll probably have finished by the time you guys read this. Sumahoy 02:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 02:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:History of African-American civil rights to match the other subcategories of Category:History of civil rights in the United States. - EurekaLott 13:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. per nom--Esprit15d 16:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:History of African-American civil rights to match the other subcategories of Category:History of civil rights in the United States. jengod 20:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. per nom--Palm_Dogg 21:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Proposal amended to Category:History of African-American civil rights, which is probably the option I would have come up with if I'd thought it through myself rather than copying a suggestion I found on the talk page. Sumahoy 01:11, 25 January 2006 (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 15:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only top tier U.S. history category which we didn't manage to get unabbreviated before. The problem was to do with whether it was entirely military or not. So now I've started a parent category called Category:Nuclear technology in the United States and hopefully that removed the obstacle to renaming this one to match the lead article Nuclear weapons and the United States. Lots of populating and reorganising needs to be done by someone who understands this topic better than me, but it will happen in time no doubt Sumahoy 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 12:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename :Category:Nuclear weapons history of the United States and split non-weapons related articles into Category:Nuclear technology in the United States. Frankly, the article should be renamed to get rid of the and, but this isn't the forum. Josh 22:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed It's not all history, we've still got 'em. Golfcam 05:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Changed alternate proposal to reflect that, didn't realize that category didn't already exist, which of course it should as there's plenty to populate it with. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) specifically names 'weapons' as being '... of Nation' format, so the 'Nuclear weapons and the United States' would be against this convention, thus my proposal to use Category:Nuclear weapons of the United States. Josh 10:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Nuclear weapons of the United States" would be a category of U.S. developed nuclear weapons (i.e. like Category:Category:American Cold War nuclear bombs). The and in the article is a result of the fact that it used to be "United States and nuclear weapons" (like United States and weapons of mass destruction), but that got AFRed to "Nuclear weapons and the United States" for some reason that I think was somewhat pointless. But anyway, it is an article, as you can see, which attempts to catalog all of the many different strands of information in relation to the U.S. nuclear weapons program, past and present. There is a lot of history in it but it is not strictly a history page (it is not chronological in the slightest). I don't care whether the category gets renamed or not but I think having a history specific category is useful, because a category with a name like "Nuclear weapons and the United States" would encompass a lot of things that the current one does not. --Fastfission 03:08, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Would not be quite the same thing as it is now; current category is supposed to primarily be historical. The main article for it is currently that one since it is the most specifically apt for it. My suggestion would be to rename it to something like Category:Nuclear weapons history of the United States which is more specific to what it is supposed to be and gets rid of the acronym. --Fastfission 03:10, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that category is to exist - and I don't think it is a good idea, as when does the history stop and the present begin? - it should be a subcategory of this category. Sumahoy 05:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question of the line between history and the present is not something this CFR needs to hash out. We have plenty of history categories. The question is whether this new category name is really the same thing as the old one. It is not. My suggestion is to fix the abbreviation and order according to MOS (to Category:History of nuclear weapons and the United States, for example), and leave the question of what goes in the category and whether we should have a separate history category to the people who work on the articles within it. --Fastfission 13:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Amended proposal to Category:Nuclear weapons of the United States as per Josh. That is clearly the main topic. The very dubious separate history category should be a subcategory if it should exist at all. Sumahoy 19:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Nuclear weapons of the United States and populate with several subcategories which already exist. This subject area needs to be organised by country as well as by theme. Choalbaton 20:10, 31 January 2006 (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 14:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The abbreviation should go, and the amended word order is an improvement - in my opinion any way. Sumahoy 02:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename Sumahoy 02:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 12:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Nuclear weapons infrastructure in the United States to reflect naming policy for infrstructure and permanent man-made items by country. Josh 22:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be incorrect and misleading. The articles are not all about man-made objects and at least one is about a place located outside the United States, eg Pacific Proving Grounds. Sumahoy 19:43, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. --Fastfission 03:09, 28 January 2006 (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 14:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Ambiguous name. Rename to Category:Role-playing game adventures. -Sean Curtin 01:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I agree -- Genesis 08:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should we maybe rename it to something like Category:Role-playing game adventures and campaigns instead, so that it includes all story supplements
  • Rename. per nom--Esprit15d 15:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename no problem. Golfcam 05:13, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Strongly agree. In fact, if there wasn't a discussion here already, I'd suggest we be bold and just do it. GRuban 17:07, 27 January 2006 (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 14:52, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created to subcategorize Category:Role-playing games, but the name isn't appropriate for the contents of the category. The category only includes tabletop role-playing games, and not any other published RPGs. A category for all published RPGs is pointless, as no unpublished RPGs have WP articles. Rename to Category:Tabletop role-playing games. -Sean Curtin 01:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete rather than rename - Tabletop role-playing game will be merged into Role-playing game soon anyway. Percy Snoodle 10:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree the category is pointless. If I were browsing, I would expect to find the articles under the parent Category:Role-playing games. - Salvor Hardin 04:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The category makes sense, as the parent category also includes misc articles of the topic. It should be renamed though. Delete. Alright, it might make more sense to put role-playing games onto the parent category, but then we should consider moving the misc articles (those which are no games, but only related articles) into fitting categories -- Genesis 21:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Someone created this category and someone else has preceeded to move every roleplaying game into it. The original Category:Role-playing games was sufficient without confusing the issue. Ben W Bell 09:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I created the category and I moved the RPG articles to it myself. I wanted a category for articles about actual games, rather than the more inclusive Category:Role-playing games, to prune the parent category some. Category:Published role-playing games could then be further divided into genres or in-print status. But if people aren't happy with it, it's fine with me to delete it and move the articles back to the parent category. I don't want to rename it to something "tabletop", since that would be inconsistent with the names of the other subcategories. Jonas Karlsson 17:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, for all the reasons given above, and more. Even the original creator agrees. Category:Role-playing games has been sorted another way, and now looks quite good, the need for this cat has passed. GRuban 17:11, 27 January 2006 (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.