Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 17

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. Syrthiss 12:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for graduates of

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 10:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Note also that this could conceivably be confused in the future for graduates of
  Clarion University of Pennsylvania, although such a category for the university would probably be at "Clarion University alumni". — Dale Arnett 16:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Keep, although I'm not happy with the title. There are probably less than 1000 such persons, and certainly less than 10000. This distinguishes it from the implausible categories which the nominator is comparing it to. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:30, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carina22 20:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Changed vote and deleted old notes as they were based on a misunderstanding.
  Mike Christie 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete It would be better to put this information in a list rather than making it harder to find the more essential categories that a person is belongs to--JeffW 13:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]
  • Sorry, not clear what you mean by this -- what are you suggesting that is different from the list on the page under discussion?
    Mike Christie 15:00, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • What's under discussion is a category. Pages get put in a category by having a Category tag added to the page. Lists are articles, like List of Sesame Street animators. Pages get put into a list by adding a link to the list. Is that clearer? --JeffW 16:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I understand now. Pardon my misunderstanding; I am new here. I'm revising my vote above to be Delete; the list article is a good thing but the category is unnecessary. (I'm user "Coldchrist"; just added a nickname as I intended my real name to be visible.)
        Mike Christie 16:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
        ]

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. Syrthiss 12:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have both sexes combined for some historical reason. This would be a big change that would have to take place for all nationalities... this may be the place to decide that... but, I think we've mostly agreed on it being actors for both male and female. gren グレン 23:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. We should be consistent here. --Saforrest 23:45, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well yes, but.. do you think it's better to or not to split up the sexes on every "Foo nationality actors". Wikipedia:Category math feature would solve all of these problems. gren グレン 23:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Guideline states "Whenever possible, categories should not be gendered" (
  Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality). It is quite possible not to split actors by gender, so unless anyone can advance a new argument why they should be then that discussion has been and gone. Valiantis 00:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep unmerged and make sub-cat. people voting merge better get to work then - there are several gendered pages Category:American women, Category:Women scientists, Category:Women by nationality. saying some are more encyclopedic then others is POV, a no-no Mayumashu 03:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one said classifying pages by sex was absolutely forbidden. To my mind the difference that justifies the merge in this case is that this classification is implicitly exclusive. That is, if an Iranian actress is in Category:Iranian actresses, you can be fairly sure people will make sure she is not be in Category:Iranian actors, since in that context people would take "actor" to mean "male actor".
  • On the other hand any woman in Category:Women scientists would or should be found in another subcategory of Category:Scientists, e.g. Category:Particle physicists. So sorting based on sex is just one of several ways to access the information. With "actors" and "actresses", which are presumably "leaf" categories, we now a have mandatory grouping by both gender and specific profession. It's not as bad as would be Category:Women particle physicists, but IMHO it's still undesirable. --Saforrest 06:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Some of these have come up before and I have consistently voted against subdivision by sex where there is no subject-related ground for this. The reason "something else is wrong" is a pretty poor reason for allowing this incorrect cat to survive. It seems to me there is a guideline and this guideline has been achieved by consensus, if people do not agree with the guideline then they should re-open debate on the guideline as a whole, not attempt to subvert it one category at a time. Valiantis 13:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge as per Mayumashu. SouthernComfort 04:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge Not separating actors and actresses is a notable silliness. Bhoeble 10:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why? It is clearly not self-evidently silly, so I think you need to provide some explanation for a statement like that. I'm not personally hung up on avoiding the use of the word actress, but it is fairly clear that nowadays it tends to be deprecated within the acting profession itself (the names of the acting Oscars being a notable exception!). The article
    actress is only a re-direct to actor; I would query the correctness of creating a category which implies a hierarchy of Category:Actresses for which there is no appropriate article. Valiantis 13:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Why deletion?: What's your problem ? it's completey about English language, He used for men and She used for women, is it make any problem? MAN is a word to indicate male humans and WOMAN is a word to indicate female humans, Not HE & SHE nor MAN & WOMAN are not discrimination or anything like that, these're LANGUAGE's specifications. in Persian there's no gender so we call anybody "OO" or "WAY" , male or female are not considered in Persian so we never say "BAZIGAR MARD" or "BAZIGAR ZAN", both of them are "BAZIGAR". Can you please obey English's laws. Sasanjan 18:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge In English, the word actor means both men and women. There is no need for a separate actresses category.

• Merge no need for separate category AdamSmithee 20:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge -- - K a s h ^{Talk | email} 21:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge: What? in English "Actress" means a FEMALE actor Oxford Entry For Actress, and "actor" means "a person whose profession is acting" Oxford Entry For Actor Sasanjan 18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. So an actor category is sufficient for both sexes and a separate actresses category is not needed, or wanted. --JeffW 18:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If there was no word "actress" in English language you might right, but "actress" is what we're using for Nicole Kidman(e.g.) not "actor", and I never tried to separate film directors(e.g.) by their genders.Sasanjan 09:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure what point you are trying to argue on the basis of usage in Persian. This is hardly relevant. As far as English - which also has no grammatical gender - is concerned, there are feminine forms of many "profession" nouns - most of them more obscure than actress - but that is not the point. As you state yourself, "actor" means anyone who acts; the actual business of acting is not different dependent on the sex of the person doing the job. Under WP guidelines there is therefore no reason to have separate categories. If you can come up with a good argument based on the qualitative difference of the job of acting dependent on whether the actor is male or female, then you have an argument for not applying the guidelines. Simply pointing out that a word exists in English is not a basis for therefore using that word as the name of a category. If you have a general objection to the guideline, re-open debate on the guideline; these attempts to undermine guidelines reached by debate and consensus by changing one cat at a time are IMO contrary to the spirit of this project! Valiantis 14:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per above (particularly Valiantis and Saforrest) and for consistency, as there appear to be no other Fooian actresses categories. Mairi 07:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge : I'm still oppose to any merge, actresses are actresses and actors are actors, there are lots of articles which separated by genders(see above), and even: A. Award for Best ACTRESS!, It's absolutely easy, we need it.Sasanjan 09:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I previously pointed out that division of cats by gender (without "a distinct reason") was contrary to guidelines. In fact the page which advises against gender-division of cats (
  Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)) is official policy rather than just a guideline. "Actresses are actresses and actors are actors" or "Not separating actors and actresses is a notable silliness" are hardly distinct reasons!! The Oscar article is called "Best Actress" because that's what that award is called. What exactly is your point?? Valiantis 13:39, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If that is a separation by gender, so what about Oscar? can wikipedia stop articles about Best Actors and Best Actress because they seems against its laws? even Americans Actors cat. noticed that needs sub cats. because of large number of entries. Can we say using SHE for actresses is forbidden because its against the laws? Can we say Jessica Alba is man because saying about her(to wiki: excuse me for using this word) gender is against the wiki laws? your ideas and if wiki's laws forbidden such cats. are obviously discrimination, another issue! British Actors cat. have a sub cat. for BLACK british actors and this is racism, isn't it? and another one, for example, Lysette Anthony, in her(another excuse me) page wrote: is a British film, television, and theater actress., wow! actress! .Sasanjan 05:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course, WP can't influence external bodies as to what they call things and the articles and categories that refer to things such as the Best Actress Oscar are called accordingly. This is a quite ridiculous straw man argument. Similarly, it is ludicrous of you to suggest that Wikipedia "laws" would forbid us from using the word "she" just because the clear official policy as decided by consensus is that category names should avoid gender division as much as possible. The fact that an article on an actor who is female describes her as an "actress" is utterly irrelevant to the issue of whether male and female actors should be in the same category or not. It is also again a total straw man argument as I have already expressly stated I have no specific ideological objections to the use of the term "actress" to describe actors who are female; the issue is whether we should subdivide cats on the basis of sex. WP policy on this specific issue says it should be avoided. If you either cannot understand this point, or you do understand this point but wish to avoid addressing it by the use of straw man arguments, I see little point in debating the issue with you further. Valiantis 14:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Simply put, all actresses are actors, but not all actors are actresses. -choster 20:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actors are not actress and this is the problem, when somebody merges actors and actresses it seems actresses are addded to actors, and this is another problem, and by the way, is there any woman here to participate in this discussion?Sasanjan 05:33, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a "problem". You yourself have quoted a dictionary definition above defining "actor" as "a person whose profession is acting". Men and women are both people, so men and women whose profession is acting are all actors. If there were a category called "Iranian male actors" and the proposal were to merge "Iranian actresses" into "Iranian male actors", you would have a point. However, the proposal is to merge "Iranian actresses" into the gender-neutral "Iranian actors". Based on your comments here -

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films#Actors / Actresses - you appear to be under the wholly incorrect impression that the word "actor" can only mean a male person. I would suggest you re-read the dictionary definition you quoted. Valiantis 14:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, let me be clearer, if somebody want to know how many Iranian, American, Japanese, Indian blah blah blah, actresses are in Wikipedia, how he\she can find out such information? I've just said, having these two words in English, is a very good opportunity, Wikipedia should be most easiest to use as well as most reliable\largest encylopedia in history, just say me how many actors and actresses are stated in wikipedia, you don't know ! and this is another problem guys, for God's sake believe SOLID materials like Wiki's current laws are fragile, not today but someday they will kill wikipedia, Mammuts were so big and unflexible so they died but ants were tiny but flexible and they are alive!. We NEED such classifications, because we can't say our readers how to search or use wiki, we can predict all of their actions and we have to do most we can, I will start another discussion about wiki laws, let go there and continue our discussion there, ok?Sasanjan 22:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Take it to

Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories). In the meantime, can I assume you will be changing your vote here to reflect the current official policy and to maintain consistency with all the other subcats of Category:Actors by nationality? Valiantis 13:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• merge: Only because of current Wiki policies!Sasanjan 14:26, 25 April 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 withdrawn by nominator. --William Allen Simpson 18:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the invasions included in this category, the Roman invasion, happened long before there was an "England"; this is arguably also true of the Anglo-Saxon invasion, since "England" was a result of that invasion. Since it is most natural to include these invasions all in a single category, I propose renaming the category to Category:Invasions of Britain. --Saforrest 23:17, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enough people seem to feel that having both Category:Invasions of Britain (or Great Britain) and Category:Invasions of England is desirable that I am therefore withdrawing the nomination. We'll create the supercat and populate it appropriately. --Saforrest 22:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Most of the articles refer to invasions before there was an England or to (putative) invasions after the Act of Union or to an invasion that was arguably of both England and Scotland as it overthrew their joint king (
  The Glorious Revolution). They all refer to invasions of the island of Britain rather than cross-border land invasions between England and Scotland or England and Wales. An English subcat might be appropriate for those invasions that were specifically of England. Valiantis 00:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename with the subcat that Valiantis proposes; most invasions listed are of England. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if we're going to have both, it seems rather silly to bother with a rename: we can just make Category:Invasions of Britain, recat the current category, and be done with it. But I don't think both are necessary.
  • Regarding your point that many of the invasions are of England: this understandably reflects the current name; certainly invasions of Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall could be added once Category:Invasions of Britain exists. --Saforrest 05:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose If we are just going to re-name the category, only to re-create it as a subcat of the renamed category, then it seems a bit pointless. It is worth pointing out that many, many Wikipedia articles are kind of illogically classified: thousands upon thousands of articles are classified under subcats of Category:United Kingdom and Category:British people that concern topics or biographies before the establishment of that state (which is 1801 according to Wikipedia, although 1707 would seem more logical). If we really must rename it then at least be accurate: the island is not called "Britain" (a highly ambiguous term): it is called "Great Britain", so any supercategory should be called Category:Invasions of Great Britain, or less ambiguously yet: Category:Invasions of the island of Great Britain. --Mais oui! 07:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought about that name too, and I'm happy with what you suggest, though I don't consider Britain (when used geographically) to be ambiguous; however, the current cat is a subcat of
    Vikings only raided south of Berwick). Valiantis 14:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Just because one or two articles are wrongly classified does not mean that the category itself is flawed. All you do is remove those incorrect articles, although actually there is no reason why the Vikings one cannot stay, because it is a valid entry in all and any subcategories of every "Cat:Invasions of [insert northern European country here]". My understanding is that the Vikings who conquered most of England were actually largely from Denmark, and the Scottish, Irish and Welsh ones largely from Norway, but Wikipedia obviously hasn't got separate articles (yet) on those two different cultural groups. --Mais oui! 15:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just a reply to your last comment: I don't think we can make any authoritative comment about the origins of various Vikings. Perhaps the Vikings who inhabited the Danelaw were mostly Danish, but the boundaries between Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians were very blurred in those days, and in any case many medieval English chroniclers didn't know the difference. --Saforrest 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not disagreeing with the existence of an "Invasions of England" cat here as I think I've stated explicitly. However, the current cat is being misused based on its name. If it is easier to create an "Invasions of (Great) Britain" cat and put this cat into it and recategorise appropriately (rather then rename) then I'm all for that. Valiantis 14:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and reorganise as appropriate. There should be a subcategory for invasions in category:History of England. Bhoeble 10:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: My rationale for nominating was that there are really fairly few entries here which should be in an "invasions of England" category. I think any such specifically English category should contain only invasions of English territory when England 1) existed, and 2) was not subsumed into larger political entities like Great Britain or the UK. It would be a bit silly to describe
  Norman conquest of England, and Glorious Revolution. --Saforrest 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• In that case, please leave only those entries in the category, create the necessary supercategory, and please withdraw your CFD nomination, because we all seem to be agreeing that there is a purpose for such the cat. --Mais oui! 09:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually I'm not convinced that a specifically English category is necessary, since it would have only four entries (of the current articles). But enough people seem to think it would be necessary that I am willing to withdraw the nomination. --Saforrest 22:04, 21 April 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. Syrthiss 12:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the reasons mentioned in the next nomination down apply and this is also too small and overprecise. The 3 articles are in category:Aquaria in Canada and Category:Visitor attractions in British Columbia. Choalbaton 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Choalbaton 21:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 10:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ardenn 03:27, 19 April 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 merge. Syrthiss 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zoos and category:Aquaria are separate and none of the other national categories are combined in this way. This category is also miscapitalised. I have moved the aquaria to Category:Aquaria in Canada, and I have no strong opinions on whether or not that should be a subcategory of Category:Zoos in Canada, but either way this would best be merged into category:Zoos in Canada. Choalbaton 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above. Choalbaton 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 10:56, 18 April 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. Syrthiss 12:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category that should be a list (and already is at Oprah's Book Club. MakeRocketGoNow 20:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral on this one. Seems to be (I know not why) a very notable book club, especially in comparison to Richard & Judy; and I generally prefer categories to lists. However, I do wonder about whether it's encyclopedic or not. Hence, neutral. --kingboyk 21:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No question of notability: this book club, along with anything to do with Oprah's show, is very popular in the U.S. and Canada. As of a few years ago, at least, Chapters had a special section for Oprah's Book Club books. However, I'm not sold on the idea of a category for them. --Saforrest 00:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I tend to oppose this sort of category, but a number of the titles in the cat owe much of their notability to having been selected as part of Oprah's Book Club; as such it might be considered the primarily notable fact for some of the books and therefore is an appropriate cat for them. OTOH, this is hardly the case with Anna Karenina or One Hundred Years of Solitude. As a cat called "Books that owe much of their fame to Oprah's Book Club" is unacceptable (who decides which this applies to?) then I guess this'll have to stay. Valiantis 00:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Such categories should exist for the most prominent such club in all countries or none, and out of those options none is best. Also, this is a matter of only temporary interest. Bhoeble 10:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Listing is better here. Scranchuse 02:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Being named to Oprah's list is a pretty significant achievement (for good or for worse sometimes, i.e. James Frey). Also prefer cats over lists, as they seem more encyclopedic and easy to reference from the articles themselves. Tijuana Brass 02:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. One of the few really well-known and enduring book clubs, and titles are being added all the time. Her Pegship 22:11, 19 April 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. Syrthiss 12:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standard plural form and useful suggestions from Valiantis on the talk page here [1]. Tim! 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. —Whouk (talk) 21:19, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Valiantis 00:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Sahasrahla 03:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Tijuana Brass 01:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:38, 22 April 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. Syrthiss 12:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As above for Ombudsman/Ombudsmen Tim! 20:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Valiantis 00:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, you grammar no good. Tijuana Brass 01:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:38, 22 April 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. Syrthiss 12:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another non-standard plural per above. — Apr. 18, '06 [01:20] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Rename Tim! 06:52, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 10:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The proposal is to rename not delete!! Valiantis 14:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename
  talk page for more discussion. The term "Ombudsman" refers both to the post and to the individual who fills the post. The idea is to have Category:Ombudsmen for the posts and Category:Ombudsmen (people) as a subcat for biographies of individual people who are ombudsmen. Valiantis 14:26, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:38, 22 April 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 LGBaleeTe!. Syrthiss 12:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to a proper pluralization and populated with articles, or deleted, but can't be left as is. I lack sufficient familiarity with the topic to know whether the former is feasible. — Apr. 18, '06 [01:20] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Delete , one entry which is already in another ombudsman category Tim! 06:48, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Only entry is not explicitly about ombudsmen either. Valiantis 14:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:34, 24 April 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. Syrthiss 12:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to a proper pluralization and populated with articles, or deleted, but can't be left as is. I lack sufficient familiarity with the topic to know whether the former is feasible. — Apr. 18, '06 [01:25] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Delete , one entry which is already in another ombudsman category Tim! 06:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless there are more of them (and I hope there aren't as this is nanny state jobs for the boys at its worst) Bhoeble 10:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Children's ombudsmen. Potential for growth. The fact that you disagree with something on principle is not a ground for deleting a cat, so perhaps best not to express a POV on the subject in case it backfires. Valiantis 14:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In the absence of evidence for the potential for growth. Carina22 20:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rename to Category:Children's ombudsmen. David Kernow 02:38, 22 April 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. Syrthiss 12:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to a proper pluralization, and populated with articles, or deleted, but can't be left as is. I lack sufficient familiarity with the topic to know whether the former is feasible. Also, the "O" probably should not be capitalized, unless the title in its plural form is the name of an organization, which does not seem likely. — Apr. 18, '06 [01:29] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Delete , two entries both of which are already in another ombudsman category (may need moving after outcome of the various categories currently up for rename/deletion) Tim! 06:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rename to Category:European ombudsmen. David Kernow 02:38, 22 April 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 (and hopefully populate). Syrthiss 12:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs to be renamed to a proper pluralization and populated with articles, or deleted, but can't be left as is. I lack sufficient familiarity with the topic to know whether the former is feasible. — Apr. 18, '06 [01:29] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Delete , one entry which can moved to one of the above categories. Tim! 06:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Lumping press ombudsmen (or press ombudsmans -- the word is from the Swedish, and the "man" part actually means "one") makes as much sense as lumping anyone called a "Speaker" under the same category. Daniel Okrent and Deborah Howell didn'T/don't have the same job as Emily O'Reilly. --Calton | Talk 07:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Press ombudsmen. BTW, the plural in English is usually "ombudsmen". I have provided several sources on this page's talk page. Also in Swedish, "man" means "man" ("one" is a derived sense of this) [2] and the plural of "Ombudsman" is "Ombudsmän" (pronounced "...men") [3]. Valiantis 14:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rename to Category:Press ombudsmen. David Kernow 02:38, 22 April 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. Syrthiss 12:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be a duplicate of the previous entry, could probably be speedy deleted as such. — Apr. 18, '06 [01:29] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• Delete only entry is the above category Tim! 06:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not needed. Bhoeble 11:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as duplication Valiantis 14:21, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:38, 22 April 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. Syrthiss 12:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are no Russian duchesses but there are Russian grand duchesses. All had been previously removed from this category as it was inaccurate and other categories better describe the women it was used for. Charles 20:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Whouk (talk) 21:20, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Athenaeum 20:05, 25 April 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 merge. Syrthiss 12:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAZA is the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums. The members seem to be all the reputable zoos and acquairiums in Canada, and the category is thus pretty pointless. Merge into category:Zoos in Canada. Choalbaton 20:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Merge as per nom Mayumashu 03:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 11:01, 18 April 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 deletions that change lives. Syrthiss 12:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grouping colleges and universities because they were covered in the same book does not make for a useful categorization scheme. - EurekaLott 20:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Classifying things by book is definitely a bad idea as there are so many books. Choalbaton 21:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Valiantis 00:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, the title is laughable. Tijuana Brass 11:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, MikeHobday 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:37, 24 April 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. Syrthiss 12:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incompletely implemented subcategory of Category:Sports venues by city, which is still small enough not to require country-level subcategories. The one category it includes is duplicated in the parent category. - EurekaLott 20:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:40, 22 April 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, but populate or I'm going to come through in a month and whack it. Syrthiss 12:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently empty category with minimal possibilities for growth. How many notable Thai Americans are there, really? Tiger Woods doesn't count. Microtonal 18:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just because a category might remain small doesn't mean it should be deleted. Royalbroil 23:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's a lot of subcats in Category:American people by national origin. I don't see any obvious reason why there should be so few notable Americans of Thai origin to not warrant this category's existence. --Saforrest 00:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. In fact, if you include people with one Thai parent, there's Johnny Damon. — Dale Arnett 06:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Carina22 20:47, 19 April 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. Syrthiss 12:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First: America != United States. Secondly: Avoid adjective and use nouns when dealing with countries.

• Strong Oppose. The America vs. United States issue is basically settled. Most of the other subcategories in Category:Disaster preparation by country are of the form 'fooian disaster preparation' which seems to be the correct form. If anything, the following changes should be made:

  Category:Disaster preparation in Germany to Category:German disaster preparation

  Category:Disaster preparation in Puerto Rico to Category:Puerto Rican disaster preparation

Vegaswikian 19:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. I agree with Vegaswikian that American is the correct adjective to use when speaking about the United States, but disagree that a nationality adjective is appropriate for this "by country" category. People and "cultural objects" are categorised "by nationality" and other things "by country".
  the exceptions where things categorised by country are nevertheless named "Fooian X" appear to apply here, so it appears the majority of the current cats in Category:Disaster preparation by country (i.e. 4 out of the 6) are wrongly named. I will wait for other comments here and then list the remainder for renaming to "Disaster preparation in Fooland" dependent on those comments. Valiantis 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I can live with consensus, which ever way it goes, as long as all of the categories wind up using the same form. Vegaswikian 06:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename All of these should be "Disaster preparation in Foo". Bhoeble 11:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carina22 20:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:48, 22 April 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. Syrthiss 12:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the form used for the other subcategories and unless there is a strong local convention to the contrary of the proposed form renaming seems to be a straightforward matter of applying general principles. CalJW 13:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - the full version is the better form (unless an islander comments to disagree...) —Whouk (talk) 21:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete [DK: Rename?] per nom. Bhoeble 11:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Athenaeum 20:04, 25 April 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. Syrthiss 12:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A follow up to the two nominations below. "Mormonism" sounds more neutral and the main category is Category:Mormonism. Rename Bhoeble 10:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename BUT to History of the Latter Day Saint movement. Please be aware that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement has established naming conventions, particularly based on the appropriate use of Latter Day Saint, Latter-day Saint, and Mormonism. Various factions of the movement use different names, and Mormonism is not universal. WBardwin 08:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardwin. When speaking about the LDS movement, "Latter Day Saint" is far more accurate than "Mormonism"; while I find it easier to use the later name in casual conversation as well, it's a POV choice that is improper to carry over to Wikipedia. Please check on established naming conventions before nominating a cat of this nature. Tijuana Brass 09:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the members of a religious group should be allowed to override normal everyday usage when deciding how to name relevant categories. Bhoeble 11:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename lds.org states "The term Mormon is a nickname applied exclusively to members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or to that church (see The Associated Press Stylebook). It is not accurately applied to any other person or organization."lds.org. Additionally, "The term “Mormonism” is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints."lds.org. I don't know if this was at some previous point, but "Latter-day Saint" would be more correct than "Latter Day Saint," but the term "Mormonism" has the advantage of greater general familiarity. There being no official stylistic objections to using the term "Mormonism" in this context, my vote would be for "History of Mormonism" for its simplicity and greater familiarity. However, I would include the caveat that this term ought to refer exclusively to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. If we wish to include the Community of Christ, Strangites, Bickertonites, polygamist groups, etc., a broader umbrella term ought to be used; perhaps History of the Restorationist Movement.Ryan Reeder 10:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A broader umbrella term already exists and is in use: Latter Day Saint. Again, this isn't a stylistic issue of whether or not to use Mormonism, it's simply incorrect to do so as the category is not specific to the CoJCoLDS. Tijuana Brass 10:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan, the trouble is that TCoJCoLdS states a preference in terminology (LdS over LDS over Mormon), but claims "ownership" of all three sets of terms: it's not really possible to uphold all of that, in any sort of neutral context. "Restorationist Movement" is much too broad, and would include (if not to say, especially suggest) the Stone-Campbellites, who are not "LDS movement" in any sense, and similarly the JWs, the Adventists, etc. Alai 00:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per WBardwin. Latter Day Saint is a much more accurate, more neutral term and encompasses sects who now reject the Book of Mormon. Please read the Latter Day Saint/Latter-day Saint/Mormonism styleguide at
  WP:LDS. Using the term mormonism would cause the category to be inaccurate, and not follow the NPOV norm that was established among the editors of the various Latter Day Saint demoninations. -Visorstuff 13:40, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename to "Latter Day Saint movement" variant, as per WBardwin. Alai 15:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardin. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do NOT rename! All Mormons are Latter Day Saints but not all Latter Day Saints are Mormons.
  Restoration Branches) is getting cut out. --Nerd42 19:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename BUT to History of the Latter Day Saint movement. Carina22 20:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardin. COGDEN 01:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardin. Val42 03:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Rename Mormonism has splintered since its founding. It now includes the official LDS church as well as small splinter groups, some of which adhere to the original precepts of their prophets. LDS understandably wants to distant itself from its early history, but their political spin should not get a historical stamp of approval. Mormonism is a broad term like christianity or Islam, under which many groups operate. Sqrjn 00:37, 8 May 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 to History books about the Latter Day Saint movement. Syrthiss 12:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to the nomination below. Some of these books are critical so the possessive is misleading. Mormonism is more familiar in everyday English and sounds more neutral. The top category is category:Mormonism. Rename category:History books about Mormonism Bhoeble 10:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename BUT to History books about the Latter Day Saint movement. Please be aware that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement has established naming conventions, particularly based on the appropriate use of Latter Day Saint, Latter-day Saint, and Mormonism. Various factions of the movement use different names, and Mormonism is not universal. WBardwin 08:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardwin. See my additional comments on the previous vote as well. Tijuana Brass 09:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardwin. You'd have to remove all Community of Christ shared historical articles - and how can you study the Latter Day Saint movemement without the Community of Christ (formerly the Reoganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. Plus the terms Latter Day Saint, Latter-day Saint and Mormon as used in Wikipedia follow Non-LDS scholarly standards.
  Methodist historian at Purdue, who studies churches (Latter Day Saint movement) that branch back to Joseph Smith, Jr. came up with the terminology which is now standard in academic circles. That is why the terminology was adopted here - its the norm among academics and neutral. -Visorstuff 13:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename to "Latter Day Saint movement" variant, as per WBardwin. Alai 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardin. Mormonism is not more neutral, for some within the Latter Day Saint movement Mormonism is felt to be offensive. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• No do Not rename see above --Nerd42 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename BUT to History books about the Latter Day Saint movement. As a minimum remove the capital H and the capital B as that is a speedy renaming matter. Carina22 20:49, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardin. COGDEN 01:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardin. Val42 03:24, 21 April 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 to HotLDSm. Syrthiss 12:44, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a start the capitalisation is wrong. More importantly, as the blurb says, some of these historians are critics of the religion, not adherents of it. Finally "Mormonism" is both more familiar and more neutral sounding than "Latter Day Saint" and the main category is Category:Mormonism. Rename Category:Historians of Mormonism Bhoeble 10:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I was under the impression that members of the Church of Latter Day Saints didn't like to be called Mormons. Are there any members of that church here that can shed any light on this? --JeffW 23:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct in the sense that the term "Mormon" isn't proper for an academic discussion of the

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and especially the Latter Day Saint movement in general. Tijuana Brass

• Rename BUT to Historians of the Latter Day Saint movement. Please be aware that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement has established naming conventions, particularly based on the appropriate use of Latter Day Saint, Latter-day Saint, and Mormonism. Various factions of the movement use different names, and Mormonism is not universal, nor always appreciated as JeffW mentions above. WBardwin 08:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardwin. See my additional comments on the previous vote as well. The capitalization would be wrong were it to refer only to the
  Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints; when referring to the movement as a whole, the original capitalization is used. Tijuana Brass 09:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename See above comments. A historian such as Jan Shipps would not be properly termed a "Latter Day Saint Historian," (as she is a Methodist). There may be specific naming conventions as WBardwin mentions, but I would only use "Latter Day Saint" when quoting sources prior to the time when the punctuation of the name of the Church was standardized. (I'm uncertain as to when this was, but I've seen evidence that it may have been as late as the 1970s). To clarify when to use the term "Mormon" per lds.org, using it as a substitute name for the Church (ie, "Mormon Church") is discouraged, referring to Church members as "Mormons" is acceptable, though "Latter-day Saint" is preferred, and the use of "Mormonism" is acceptable. In that context, I see no objection to using the term "Mormonism" as a preferred term on Wikipedia to "Latter-day Saint movement" because of its simplicity and familiarity.Ryan Reeder 10:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're going with the assumption that the category is solely referring to the CoJCoLDS, which it is not — making Mormonism an incorrect term. It'd be like using "Reformed Historians" as a substitute for "Protestant Historians," using a subcategory to refer to a higher category. It's not a matter of familiarity that's at issue here, unless you're suggesting that we create another category for Latter Day Saints historians/books/whatever that does not include the CoJCoLDS. "Latter Day Saint" is the term used to refer to the Restoration movement collectively; the

Latter Day Saint article should make this abundantly clear. Tijuana Brass 10:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per WBardwin. See above comments. Mormonism deals more with the culture of one or two churches that claim smith was a successor. While it these two groups made up the majority (about 14 million of the estimated 18-20 million Latter Day Saints, it is not inclusive of the entire group and would only serve a 60 percent majority. Lets use the academic terms. -Visorstuff 13:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Latter Day Saint movement" variant, as per WBardwin. Alai 15:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardin. Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:56, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename see above --Nerd42 19:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename BUT to Historians of the Latter Day Saint movement. As a minimum remove the speediable capitals. Carina22 20:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardin. COGDEN 01:34, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per WBardin. Val42 03:24, 21 April 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 already deleted. - TexasAndroid 18:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

accidentally made double.

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. Syrthiss 12:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sports venues" is more flexible than "Stadiums" as it includes indoor arenas, racetracks, golf courses and so on. There are only a couple of stadiums in Paris proper but there are several other sports venues. The sports-related parent categories are Category:Sports venues in France and Category:Sports venues by city. Rename Choalbaton 09:33, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 19:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 15:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:48, 22 April 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. Syrthiss 12:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

redundant - we have Category:Antipodes Islands which better fits usual naming. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Bhoeble 11:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --millosh (talk (sr:)) 21:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tijuana Brass 01:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 02:48, 22 April 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. Syrthiss 12:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renomination of invalidly closed nomination. ("category not tagged"? Please.) Actors lumped together because they've been in different versions of War of the Worlds, including films, TV series or the Jeff Wayne album. Pointlessly arbitrary connection. Calton | Talk 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per other categories in actors by series. Other closure was correctly closed on procedural issue. Tim! 07:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, like Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 6#CSI categories? no, wait, that was an overwhelming "delete".

...correctly closed on procedural issue. The nominator didn't put on a {{cfd}} tag, so the solution is to close the nomination? That doesn't pass the giggle test. --Calton | Talk 07:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 09:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - to repeat my previous comment, IMO it's not worthwhile to categorise together two people because they happen to have been in two completely different adaptations of the same work. In this case, War of the Worlds is not a series in its own right but a grouping of different adaptations. (That said, I think it was reasonable to close the previous CfD: not tagging the page prevents the CfD coming to the attention of those who actually use the category unless they happen to visit
  WP:CfD regularly. It's no more OK than AfDing an article without any evidence on the article page that the discussion is taking place.) —Whouk (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Broad category of unrelated articles. - Merge with
  War of the Worlds?? ST47 22:52, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Editor's fourth edit, all of which have been to deletion process pages Special:Contributions/ST47 Tim! 06:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Valiantis 01:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete exactly how many adaptations of War of the Worlds have there been? Tonnes! 70.51.9.199 03:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Her Pegship 21:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How exactly is this any worse or more broad than categories for "Batman actors" or "Superman actors"? --Bacteria 22:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not. Given the general sentiment here against actor categories, I suspect that that those categories would not fair much better if brought up for deletion. - TexasAndroid 15:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ReeseM 22:31, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Athenaeum 20:05, 25 April 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. Syrthiss 12:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was tagged for renaming last year but nothing was done. Rename as per convention for Category:Golf clubs and courses. ReeseM 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:10, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:35, 24 April 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 merge. Syrthiss 12:48, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Article header templates(edit talk links history)

six templates at the moment, all about protection.

Category:Protection templates(edit talk links history)

one at the moment, can grow, e.g. {{

editprotected

}}

Cfm: The target category is more general - all these templates are protected, so I cant't simply do it. -- Omniplex 03:17, 17 April 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. Syrthiss 12:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Want to use a consistent name with Category:NASCAR drivers, Category:American Speed Association drivers, Category:World of Outlaws drivers, etc. Royalbroil 02:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Shouldn't the avoid abbreviations rules apply? As I know nothing about this sport and had to look up what ARCA stood for, can anyone explain why this shouldn't be called Category:Auto Racing Club of America drivers? Valiantis 01:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• use "drivers" and expand acronym as per User:Valiantis comment. Mayumashu 03:13, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Do we need to expand Category:NASCAR drivers to Category:National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing drivers? NASCAR (and for that matter ARCA) is better known by its acronym than by its full name, and I doubt anyone will type in the long name as a search term. Can more experienced editors tell us how closely the "avoid abbreviations" guideline (not "rule" nor "policy") applies here? In either case, I support renaming this category from "racers" to "drivers", whether the sanctioning body is spelled-out or acronym. Barno 17:51, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator Reply: No one knows what ARCA stands for, not even editors with thousands of edits such as myself. I have to look it up every time, and I've been a racing fan since the early 1980s. I don't consider ARCA to be an abbreviation but the name of the series. Is expanding abbreviations an IMPERATIVE action? Why break something that needs fine tuning? I STRONGLY OPPOSE renaming the article to such a long, useless, and cumbersome name. I would rather see it left at ARCA racers. Royalbroil 00:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support change of racers to drivers to be in line with parent cat Category:Racecar drivers -Drdisque 01:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Strongly Oppose expansion of name, NOBODY refers to ARCA by any name other than "arca". -Drdisque 01:13, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but please DO NOT expand the acronym, whatever you do. The Auto Racing Club of America is the only racing series that uses the ARCA acronym, and as such, that won't be necessary. --D-Day(
  be a pepper too?
  )
• Support racers to drivers, Oppose acronym expansion. Racing series (maybe just ones in the US?) seem to have a history of coming up with catchy acronyms that are almost always used in place of their full names. See NASCAR, CART, ARCA, DASH, FASCAR, etc. Recury 20:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per original nom. It seems clear from people with a knowledge of the sport that this is one of those minority of abbreviations that are better understood as acronyms than when fully spelt out. Valiantis 15:06, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Athenaeum 20:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per original nom. AFAIK, no one who follows racing in the US refers to this series as anything but ARCA. — Dale Arnett 22:51, 27 April 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 speedy merge. Syrthiss 12:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category was created by a relative newcomer who didn't understand the naming conventions that we (at WikiProject NASCAR) are using for lists of drivers (like Category:NASCAR drivers and Category:ARCA racers). We need to keep this category consistent with these similiar categories. I moved all the drivers into the new category before I got to this point. Sorry about that. The new list (with the lower case d) will have more drivers added soon. Royalbroil 02:36, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Capitalisation fix. Speedy. Valiantis 01:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination, simple capitalization fix. Barno 17:53, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge/rename. David Kernow 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:37, 24 April 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 not so speedy rename. Syrthiss 12:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The amended form will match the other six categories in category:Nature reserves. ReeseM 02:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename ReeseM 02:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Royalbroil 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge/rename. David Kernow 02:48, 22 April 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. Syrthiss 12:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

slightly more comprehensive, and specific (e.g. includes Category:Rocks on Mars. Mlm42 01:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Royalbroil 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename ST47 22:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Mlm42 14:57, 27 April 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. Syrthiss 12:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid acronym; better capitalisation; all relevant articles are in this form e.g.

• Rename per nom. MikeHobday 22:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Royalbroil 04:14, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --Mal 08:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:09, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 11:07, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.
  mattbr³⁰ 09:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 19:38, 24 April 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.