Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 October 11

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Solid Steel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Recreation of merged/deleted category, per Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 19#Category:Solid Steel. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. We shouldn't have to waste time on these. --Dhartung | Talk 03:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I didn't have chance to have a say on the original deletion. This series is distinct from the other Ninja Tune albums, as although the DJs are Ninja Tune artists, the vast majority of the content is by artists who are not on the Ninja Tune label. The series is continuing, and there are sufficent entries to warrant a grouping. I have no issue with renaming it to Category:Solid Steel albums. Alternatively, if you do not wish to keep it as a category it should become a sub-category of both the Ninja Tune albums category and the DJ-mix-albums rather than just speedy deleting it. Gram 14:15, 13 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy rename. David Kernow (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sligo Rovers F.C. players, to match Sligo Rovers F.C.. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per convention Dodge 00:50, 12 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in naming. See also Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion#Businesspeople vs Business people Garion96 (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Egyptian business people to Category:Egyptian businesspeople
• Category:English business people to Category:English businesspeople
• Category:Lebanese business people to Category:Lebanese businesspeople
• Category:Scottish business people to Category:Scottish businesspeople
• Category:Sri Lankan business people to Category:Sri Lankan businesspeople
• Category:Welsh business people to Category:Welsh businesspeople
• Category:Pakistani business people to Category:Pakistani businesspeople
• Category:British business people to Category:British businesspeople

• rename per nom Hmains 04:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It is commonly written as two words in the UK and a google search suggests that form is common in the U.S. as well. Brammen 11:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - After reading the discussion linked to above, and the preceeding comment, I think we should take the middle route and use "business-people" (note the hyphen), since this is a term "in-progress" (unlike "businessman"). - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose And most strongly oppose using a hyphen, which I don't recall ever having seen in this context. Hawkestone 18:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Which one is than the best? It just seems weird when you look in Category:Businesspeople by nationality. Garion96 (talk) 18:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The gender-neutral equivalent of "businessmen" is "businesspersons", not "businesspeople". "People" is not an exact plural of "person", but a separate word with its own connotations. --Trovatore 18:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Businesspersons" is not a real word imo. It is the sort of linguistic horror that is only used to make a politically correct point. Hawkestone 12:47, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Businesspeople" seems to be intended to make the same point, so I don't see any distinction there. The problem with the "people" version is that it seems to ascribe to them some sort of community, a quasi-ethnicity. The plural of "person", when you continue to consider them as individuals, not collectively, is "persons". --Trovatore 17:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't relevant whether you disapprove of it. It is a common English term, and Wikipedia should use normal English. You are effectively arguing that Wikipedia should engage in linguistic reform. Calsicol 11:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Response No, I'm not. "Businesspersons" is also a normal English term, and the more precise one here. I do think we ought to use more precise language when available. We shouldn't make language up, but "businesspersons" is a well-established term. --Trovatore 18:40, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per the above discussion. I think we change the sense of the terms by attempting to use them as a compound word. - jc37 00:54, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Business people" is just as bad. No one says that, and it still has the defect that "person" does not pluralize cleanly to "people". If "businesspersons" is considered ugly, we should look for a way to rephrase. --Trovatore 05:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If no one says it why does it get millions of google hits? Calsicol 11:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose switch to businesspersons. I'm not so bothered about the original issue. Calsicol 11:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Coment - I don't think that the words were in doubt. I think it's about semantics and connotations, and what the "most common" usage is. After checking your links, and checking a few other dictionaries, I think I support "business people" as the most common, while still retaining the intended meaning. (Which means I still "oppose" the nom.) - jc37 10:44, 20 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Waterfalls of Georgia to Category:Waterfalls of Georgia (U.S. state)

• Rename, This needs to be renamed to avoid confusion with the country of Georgia. Tlmclain 20:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename- I would actually rename it to Category:Waterfalls in Georgia (U.S. state) --UnDeRsCoRe 00:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - I support this, for disambiguation with the Asian Georgia. Huwmanbeing 02:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename - using "of" as per naming precedents, since wateralls are natural features, not man-made. Grutness...wha? 04:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename 132.205.44.134 00:25, 13 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete (and protected) --Kbdank71 14:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of Georgia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. The stated reason for this category is already handled by an existing category, Category:Bays of Georgia (U.S. state). This category is empty and its title conflicts with that of its parent category, Category:Geography of Georgia (U.S. state). Tlmclain 20:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, they're aren't even any articles in it! --UnDeRsCoRe 00:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplicate of Category:Geography of Georgia (U.S. state). David Kernow (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Guettarda 13:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as disambiguation category. I've rebuilt the content. 132.205.44.134 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Category:Government of Georgia and Category:Georgia 132.205.44.134 00:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We don't need additional disambiguation categories to attend to. - EurekaLott 01:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if this is deleted, then Category:Government of Georgia should also be deleted by that logic. 132.205.45.229 00:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree, and intend to nominate it and some similar categories pending the results of this nomination. - EurekaLott 19:26, 14 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. David Kernow (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Volcanoes of Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, It seems to me that there are either none, or no notable ones worth sorting into a category. --Eliyak T·C 20:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Simple, delete as empty cat. --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. It should be a Keep. The cat is empty because someone made a POV entry to Golan Heights and changed Category:Volcanoes of Israel to Category:Volcanoes by region which doesn't make sense, it should be reverted and that's why category should be kept. Amoruso 00:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Amoruso. -Sean Curtin 00:27, 16 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated. the wub "?!" 12:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wilderness areas of Tennessee into Category:Wilderness Areas of Tennessee

• Merge, These two categories are the same. The one with a lowercase a in the word "area" is empty and should either be deleted or merged into the one with an uppercase A in the word "area." Tlmclain 20:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, and pick "areas" since it's not a proper noun. >Radiant< 09:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Actually, based upon the naming convention for other similar categories, it should be "Areas." Tlmclain 11:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Radiant - "areas" isn't a proper noun. Guettarda 13:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. "Wilderness Area" is some kind of official title that the US gives to certain sites (see List of U.S. Wilderness Areas, for example). Recury 14:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into title without capitalised A. --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 23:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why without? It's a proper noun. Recury 03:56, 15 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Left-wing terrorism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete POV. Intangible 18:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Concur. Very POV. Thadius856 19:45, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I came to this page because I am a regular editor of Shining Path and this was just added to that article. At one point, Shining Path was part of a category called something like "Leftist terrorists." Because of POV, the category was renamed "Left-wing militant groups." Because of the ambiguity of "militancy," it was changed to "Armed left-wing groups." Because of the ambiguity of "left-wing," it was changed to "Irregular military." Now it's back in "Left-wing terrorism." At some point, we have to come to a consensus about what to call it; it's insane to start this whole cycle again. --Descendall 20:11, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If it is a designated terrorist organization, this categorization is easy, see Category:Designated terrorist organizations. In the case of Shining Path, they are (I guess) rightfully in that category. Need need to over-categorize this group into too much cats. Intangible 23:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Intangible. — TKD::Talk 00:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per above; perhaps also leave {{deletedcategory}}...?  David Kernow (talk) 05:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, heavy POV; I believe we've discussed this before, too. >Radiant< 09:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "Left-wing" = need for citations/references, which is not possible in a category. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons given above.GiollaUidir 14:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete anything beyond Category:Designated terrorist organizations is little more than POV. Cynical 22:09, 14 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as misnamed and still empty. David Kernow (talk) 03:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:National parks of Vietnam, convention of Category:National parks. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Thadius856 19:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom (currently empty). David Kernow (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy (capit/plural). >Radiant< 09:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge —Xanderer 14:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge/Delete per caps, plural, in/of. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:National Hockey League players with retired numbers. the wub "?!" 09:10, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:National Hockey League retired numbers, expanding the abreviation... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: if kept, the category name should indicate that it includes players, not numbers, but Category:National Hockey League players whose numbers were retired is a bit of a mouthful. - EurekaLott 02:01, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: How about Category:National Hockey League players with retired numbers? That's a slightly smaller mouthful than Eureka's suggestion. — Dale Arnett 05:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:National Hockey League players with retired numbers as per Dale Arnett. —Xanderer 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:National Hockey League players with retired numbers, per Dale Arnett. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:National Hockey League players with retired numbers, per Dale Arnett. Calsicol 11:22, 15 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 12:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Fictional gamblers, seems a little over-specific. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Scope is too small, difference is, for all practical purposes, insignificant. Thadius856 19:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - "addicts" = a need for citations/references, which cannot be done in a category. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:18, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unintelligent fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Totally subjective, POV category, that, if memory serves, is a recreation of a previously deleted category. CovenantD 17:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We wouldn't allow real people to be categorised like this, so I see no reason why to do so with fictional characters. Original research issues as well as a controversial name. Can't see a previous category with this name, so holding off speedying until I can. Hiding Talk 17:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm hoping you've tried "Fictional unintelligent people" and "Fictional stupid people" CovenantD 22:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Newt_ΨΦ 18:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom; was considering nominating it myself Shannernanner 19:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Xanderer 14:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rather subjective, and rather obvious WP:OR. Oh, wait, concerns about original research can be countered by citations/references... Which of course cannot be done in a category - a rather obvious delete : ) - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless specified to only cover non-sapient characters. -Sean Curtin 00:27, 16 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete (there was only one article left to merge). --RobertG ♬ talk 08:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:2006 films, due to unclear selection criteria .... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge A list is far better for this purpose as it can be sorted into order and can give U.S. international and global figures. Wimstead 17:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge where is "top" measured from? Tim! 17:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. "Top-grossing" films are measured by number of viewers, which theaters keep track of. All the same, a list would do a better job. Thadius856 19:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/listify (with criteria!) per above. David Kernow (talk) 05:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify —Xanderer 14:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/Delete - Another category wanting citations/references. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete. -Sean Curtin 00:27, 16 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Western movie actors
• Western movie actresses
• Merge to Western film actors. There aren't any actresses categories - all the female actors are included in actors. Pink moon1287 15:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
• Partial oppose Merge the actresses category with Category:Western movie actors, but leave that as it is. "Western film actors" makes me think of "Film actors from the Western world". Wimstead 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and comment - As above, there are no "actresses" categories, so merge those to actors. Also, I noticed that the description of Category:Western movie actors says that it highlights "film and TV actors" who made contributions to the western genre. However, supposedly this category is specifically film actors, not TV actors, so I think there is some confusion over what the category definition is supposed to be. Since this category is a subcategory of Category:Film actors, it should be film actors and not include people who were only television actors. Actors who played in television Westerns should probably be categorized seperately under Category:Western television actors, since actors are normally divided by film/tv categories. Dugwiki 22:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, possibly rename to clarify, but no need to subcat actors based on gender. >Radiant< 09:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly rename to Category:Western film and television actors - That brings up another alternative if the actors aren't split between film and television. In that case, if the category is meant to include both media types, it's probably a good idea to include them in the name. Dugwiki
• Merge/Rename to category:Western film actors. Note that this is the only sub-category of Category:Film actors which is separated by genre. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A large number of actors who worked in a certain time would have worked in one or more Westerns. Categorizing every actor based on every genre that they've worked in will rapidly bloat actor articles' categories. -Sean Curtin 00:27, 16 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Axis of evil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete Inherently POV name, created for political reasons. Incredibly inappropriate for use in an encyclopedia. Rick Block (talk) 13:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or rename to [[:Category:Dictatorships that are denounced for not serving the personal and business interests of George W Bush and his buddies while other dictators who treat their tormented subjects as bad or worse but give the Bushies good business deals and collaborate in American sponsored campaigns of death and torture get invited to lunch at the White House]]. Wimstead 16:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete neocon POV. Tim! 17:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily delete, depopulated, no need. --Golbez 18:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. -- Jeff3000 21:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 05:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't delete I'm not sure I'm allowed to vote, since I was the one who created the category, so please disregard my vote if it not valid. As for my arguements in favour of keeping this category, they are as follows-
  1. I am not in any way affiliated to George Bush or the Republicans, and am not, in fact, even an American.
  2. There is no need for us to hide the fact that these nations form the Axis of evil, and it is not up to us to decide the basis on which they were categorised as Axis of evil countries.
  • 1. That's an opinion, not a fact. Hawkestone 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  1. I don't appreciate Wimstead's anti-American propaganda. Cerebral Warrior 06:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the problem is that "Axis of Evil" is inherently POV and/or unavoidably associated with Bush/neocons/etc... Regards, David Kernow (talk) 06:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    PS So far as I'm aware, you're as entitled as anyone to vote!
  • Wimstead's comments are anti-Bush, not anti-American. The two are NOT synonymous. CovenantD 05:08, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, sad to see Americans sinking to the level where they can't distinguish between criticism of the regime and criticism of the country, like the citizens of a totalitarian state. But then that is what Bush wanted to do to them, and he has had some success. Bush is the enemy of your country guys. Hawkestone 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Deizio talk 10:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. I don't have a problem with this cat if it specifies in the description these are nations identified by the Bush administration as being part of the Axis. It isn't POV if the intention is to merely categorize the nations the administration has already labeled as such. —Xanderer 14:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...in which case I'd suggest a list rather than a category. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I had actually typed this out as a weak keep... (Yes, I'm kind of surprised myself...) Because I think that this category could actually list the citations (quotes by George Bush) itself, in which he calls the specific countries the axis of evil. But then I remembered that this would be only 3 countries... And then I saw that this was MUCH better handled in Axis of evil... Delete : ) - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.GiollaUidir 14:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Hawkestone 18:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 23:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NPOV. Cynical 22:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per common sense -- That Guy 10:04, 16 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus; rename to Category:Tollywood films to remove POV --Kbdank71 14:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Telugu-language films, Rename to Category:Tollywood films, or Delete. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Tollywood films as a counterpart to Category:Bollywood films. Tim! 17:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete. "bollywood" gets 33 megagoogles, "tollywood" only 300k or so. >Radiant< 09:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into existing cat. —Xanderer 14:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The 2 cats should be merged under one name. Tollywood is the name of the related article. (And I don't like the ambiguity of the name: "Telugu-language films".) - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Telugu-language films to Category:Tollywood films - jc37 04:55, 13 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all per nom. David Kernow (talk) 04:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following proposal is in line with the main category:Power stations and the by-country categories. Previous discussions have shown revealed that "station" is the common term in the industry, that it is used in the names of many American power stations, and that there are American Wikipedians who are happy with the switch. Brammen 13:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Coal-fired power plants to category:Coal-fired power stations
• Category:Future power plants to category:Future power stations
• Category:Hydroelectric power plants to category:Hydroelectric power stations
• Category:Nuclear power plants to category:Nuclear power stations
• Category:Oil-fueled power plants to category:Oil-fueled power stations
• Category:Solar power plants to category:Solar power stations
• Category:Tidal power plants to category:Tidal power stations
• Rename all as nom. Brammen 13:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 16:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Vegaswikian 19:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is what I hoped would happen (whether plant or station, it needed to be standardised), when previously opposing a single rename. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Occupations by nationality to Category:People by occupation and nationality and Category:Nationalities by occupation to Category:People by nationality and occupation. the wub "?!" 18:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, as a follow up to the item below. The word order reflects that in the names of the subcategories Brammen 12:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative suggestion I think having both "People by occupation and nationality" and "People by nationality and occupation" simultaneously is confusing, in part because "and" is a symmetric word ("A and B" is usually taken to be identical to "B and A"). Instead, I'd suggest possibly renaming them to Category:People sorted by occupation then by nationality and Category:People sorted by nationality then by occupation. Those are longer names but the sorting difference between the two is clearer, I think. Dugwiki 15:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Alternative suggestion is too awkward. Wimstead 16:49, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How about People by nationality then occupation and vice versa...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Occupations by nationality to Category:People by occupation and then nationality. I think this is as concise as we can get and still be clear and precise. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The alternative suggestion implies that one is more important, rather than simply stating that they are in the given order. Hawkestone 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is far clearer. Calsicol 11:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The existing name doesn't pin down the fact that these are categories for biographical articles. Golfcam 16:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, I believe the proposed name is clearer, especially in its emphasis that the articles in the subcategories are about people rather than nationalities or occupation. Brammen 12:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 16:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See above. David Kernow (talk) 05:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment we're talking about people, shouldn't that be nationals? nationals by occupation 132.205.44.134 00:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Nationalities by occupation to Category:People by nationality and then occupation. I think this is as concise as we can get and still be clear and precise. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The alternative suggestion implies that one is more important, rather than simply stating that they are in the given order. Hawkestone 18:12, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose What conceivable point is served by renaming these? The current names are well established, concise, and ultimately meaningless. category:nationalities by occupation could be people by nationality and then occupation or people by nationality by occupation or fooians by occupation or people by nationality:occupation or any of a number of phrases that are more or less gobbledygook to anyone who doesn't spend 3 hours a day editing wikipedia categories. Who cares? No one is ever going to enter the name in the search box and hit "go". -- Rick Block (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe not, but folk might still see these names and be more rather than less likely to draw inaccurate conclusions about the categories' content. I agree, though, that this case is subtle and probably more cosmetic than substantive. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 14:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What percentage of visits to a category are made via the search box. 1%? 0.1%? I just don't think it is an important issue here. Surely most people search for articles and reach categories in other ways. Calsicol 11:20, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. This is far clearer. Calsicol 11:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, but... The big problem I'm having is the inconsistancy with the naming of the "x by y" categories". For example, most "x by y" categories have members who are all x listed in order of their y, so for example, there is Category:American people by occupation. The members of this category are all Americans listed by their occupations. However, Category:Nationalities by occupation which lists categories of occupations listed by their nationalities. This is backwards. I remember finding these categories confusing when I first ran into them, but I have since gotten used to it. I think Category:Nationalities by occupation should be renamed Category:People's occupations (by nationality) or Category:Occupations of people (by nationality) or Category:People by occupation (by nationality). The current Category:Occupations by nationality could also be renamed Category:People's nationality (by occupation) or Category:Nationality of people (by occupation) or Cateogory:People by nationality (by occupation). Of these, my choices would be Category:People by occupation (by nationality) and Cateogory:People by nationality (by occupation). Perhaps there are some better choices. (I also find it interesting that when I posed this very question on the appropriate policy talk page a few months back I got ZERO responses.) --Samuel Wantman 20:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The existing name doesn't pin down the fact that these are categories for biographical articles. Golfcam 16:15, 17 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:32, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Louisiana State University faculty, convention of Category:Faculty by university in the United States. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 12:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. —Xanderer 14:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all except stub categories. Because of the macrons that are not easily typed on a qwerty keyboard, I will leave existing categories as {{category redirect}}s. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Hyogo Prefecture to Category:Hyōgo Prefecture
  • Category:Cities in Hyogo Prefecture to Category:Cities in Hyōgo Prefecture
  • Category:Districts in Hyogo Prefecture to Category:Districts in Hyōgo Prefecture
  • Category:Towns in Hyogo Prefecture to Category:Towns in Hyōgo Prefecture
  • Category:Railway stations in Hyogo Prefecture to Category:Railway stations in Hyōgo Prefecture
  • Category:People from Hyogo Prefecture to Category:People from Hyōgo Prefecture
  • Category:Hyogo geography stubs to Category:Hyōgo geography stubs
• Category:Kochi Prefecture to Category:Kōchi Prefecture
  • Category:Cities in Kochi Prefecture to Category:Cities in Kōchi Prefecture
  • Category:Districts in Kochi Prefecture to Category:Districts in Kōchi Prefecture
  • Category:Towns in Kochi Prefecture to Category:Towns in Kōchi Prefecture
  • Category:Villages in Kochi Prefecture to Category:Villages in Kōchi Prefecture
  • Category:Railway stations in Kochi Prefecture to Category:Railway stations in Kōchi Prefecture
  • Category:People from Kochi Prefecture to Category:People from Kōchi Prefecture
  • Category:Kochi geography stubs to Category:Kōchi geography stubs
• Category:Hokkaido region to Category:Hokkaidō region
• Category:Hokkaido Prefecture to Category:Hokkaidō Prefecture
  • Category:Cities in Hokkaido Prefecture to Category:Cities in Hokkaidō Prefecture
  • Category:Districts in Hokkaido Prefecture to Category:Districts in Hokkaidō Prefecture
  • Category:Subprefectures in Hokkaido Prefecture to Category:Subprefectures in Hokkaidō Prefecture
  • Category:Towns in Hokkaido Prefecture to Category:Towns in Hokkaidō Prefecture
  • Category:Villages in Hokkaido Prefecture to Category:Villages in Hokkaidō Prefecture
  • Category:Railway stations in Hokkaido Prefecture to Category:Railway stations in Hokkaidō Prefecture
  • Category:People from Hokkaido Prefecture to Category:People from Hokkaidō Prefecture
  • Category:Hokkaido geography stubs to Category:Hokkaidō geography stubs
  • Category:Volcanoes of Hokkaido to Category:Volcanoes of Hokkaidō Bobo12345 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Kanto region to Category:Kantō region
  • Category:Rugby in Kanto to Rugby in Kantō Bobo12345 12:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category:Chugoku region to Category:Chūgoku region
• Category:Chubu region to Category:Chūbu region
  • Category:Education in Chubu region to Category:Education in Chūbu region
• Category:Tohoku region to Category:Tōhoku region

• Rename all, per standardization discussion at Japan MoS talk page. Neier 11:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename all except the stub ones - Category:Hyogo geography stubs, Category:Kochi geography stubs, and Category:Hokkaido geography stubs should be proposed for change at WP:SFD, not here, as clearly stated at the top of this page. Grutness...wha? 04:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removed stub types from consideration, and created entry at WP:SFD. - Neier 05:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per Japan MoS talk page. David Kernow (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Japan-related articles). Gene Nygaard 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While the MoS page supports keeping where they are, this isn't a Manual of Style issue in any case. It is a Naming Conventions issue, and it is not properly decided on a Manual of Style talk page in any case, especially when those talk page discussions have not even resulted in any changes as far as legitimate manual of style issues goes. Gene Nygaard 05:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom (but send the stubs to SfD). -Sean Curtin 00:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per the guidelines in WP:MOS-JP. Bobo12345 07:32, 16 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:46, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:C programming language should be renamed, either to Category:C (programming language) (to match the title of the primary article [1]) or to Category:C, as "C" probably doesn't refer to anything else that would be given a category. Note: Category:C doesn't currently exist, but Template:C is a member of it for some reason. — CharlotteWebb 08:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "C (programming language)". >Radiant< 09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nah. I'm going to oppose this. The article has that name through disambiguation, I don't see that the category has to follow suit. I'm not sure what the issue is with the current category name, so I see this as a solution without a problem. Hiding Talk 12:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pavel Vozenilek 13:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you certain you read the proposal? --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:C (programming language). Tim! 17:38, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:C (programming language). With rare exception, a category named after an article should match the name of that article. Dugwiki 21:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename the article to C programming language per WP:DAB policy. Parens are not the preferred way to disambiguate if there is another option (cf. Soyuz rocket). --Dhartung | Talk 03:56, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm ok with renaming the article too. The bottom line is the category and article should use the same name.Dugwiki 15:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Dhartung. Guettarda 13:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep indeed, but at which title? — CharlotteWebb 05:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The article apparently has been renamed. I agree that in this case both the category and the article should have the same name. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both (the article and category) to Category:C programming language. (It's been explained to me that the fewer parentheticals in naming, the better : ) - jc37 00:54, 15 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:33, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Superheroes without costumes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. POV category that isn't really needed. RobJ1981 05:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this category which is not as concrete as it might sound to those who aren't sufficiently familiar with the variety of superheroes. Using the term "costume" invokes POV. What if someone's costume is actually a uniform? If somebody wears the same coat all the time, doesn't that become his or her costume? Did Jubilee wear a costume or not? The costumed heroes sometimes do heroics without wearing costumes, and those who don't normally wear costumes have sometimes worn disguises or even costumes. In one of his earliest appearances, Dr. Occult wore a costume before Superman ever did, but otherwise he has always been an uncostumed hero and, as of this writing, is categorized as a superhero without a costume. Doczilla 06:36, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, overcat. >Radiant< 09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yep, POV issues, Verifiability issues, (what, you gonna read every issue just to check?), original research issues, I mean, it's a direct observation so... and even discounting those, it's over-categorisation. Someone wants to write up a nice, detailed list style article with sourced analysis of the issue, I'm all for it. But let's not do that through a structure not suited to it. Hiding Talk 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Though I kinda like the idea, I concede all the issues raised with this category. Maybe a "plainclothes superheroes" or "superheroes without tights" would better suit the aim of the list if it's ever made. --Newt_ΨΦ 15:24, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As above Dugwiki 15:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Doczilla Wimstead 17:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons stated above UnDeRsCoRe 00:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Vague to the point that it will cause the stupidest and most irrelevant debates (is Captain America's costume more properly considered a uniform? do the New Gods' costumes count as costumes, since they would be regular clothing on their hopme planets? does the Joker's suit qualify as a costume?). -Sean Curtin 00:27, 16 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Recipients of the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research. the wub "?!" 10:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research to Category:Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research recipients

• Rename, the category contains people that recieved the award. Peta 04:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative rename to Category:Recipients of the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research. It reads better and we have no need to crunch up our content to save paper. Brammen 12:59, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your suggestion is in a different format to almost all the other awards categories.--Peta 05:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'd support a mass rename to a Recipients of... format as it avoids making some award names into lengthy adjectivals (as in this case) and promotes the categories' subjects (recipients) by placing them at the start of the names. Anyone else...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 05:33, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've got to disagree for awards where recipients are called laureates like Category:Japan Prize laureates, it would sound pretty terrible to change that the "laureates of the Japan Prize". I don't think a standard format will work well here. --Peta 06:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Same goes for medals, Category:Fields Medalists would sound terrible in any other format.--Peta 06:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Apologies not to look more closely; I agree. So, I also agree that no standard format is likely to work; in this case, per lengthy adjectival plus moving subject to name's head, my preference is:
• Rename to Category:Recipients of the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research to avoid lengthy adjectival and move category's subject to start of name. David Kernow (talk) 06:50, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Just for the sake of consistency. —Xanderer 14:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• But, as above, a consistency that doesn't lead to awkward names such as "Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research recipients" doesn't seem likely...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 16:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I have to agree with Brammen and David K. See: Category:Recipients of formal honors. It's a mixture. I think the standard should be "Recipients of", in all cases except where a specialised label is involved (such as "laureate" or "medalist"). - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Recipients of the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research. - jc37 04:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Recipients of the Albert Lasker Award for Basic Medical Research. Calsicol 11:20, 15 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 12:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WarioWare characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Unnecessary. Just about all of the characters have been merged. (trogga) 00:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Trogga. >Radiant< 09:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 13:16, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — TKD::Talk 00:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete , It's actually a non-notable game, compared to the rest of the Mario series'. So, why should it get it's own category for characters? UnDeRsCoRe 00:40, 12 October 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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as misnamed fork. David Kernow (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Redundant to Category:'N Sync albums. The title of this category (*NSYNC) is incorrect (the correct way to spell it is 'N Sync). There are no articles in this category anymore. — Moe 00:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy, spelling. >Radiant< 09:34, 11 October 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 section.