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. ∞Who?¿? 04:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The name "civil law" has more than one popular meaning, the way the category is currently used it refers to civil law as used in the common law system (where law is either civil or public). It would be helpful if the category would reflect that meaning, as it is not clear enough as it is. I'm open to other suggestions on an appropriate name, say perhaps "Civil law (common law)" would work too. PullUpYourSocks 20:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, meaning is clear. Neutrality^talk 03:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, how can it be clear when the more widely used meaning of the term "civil law" has a totally different meaning? --PullUpYourSocks 18:50, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support for clearly delineating classical "Civil Law" - i.e. laws as collections of legislated codes such as the Code of Justinian or the Napoleanic Code - from civil law under the common law, comprised of court-made rules respecting individual recovery for torts, contractual wrongs, and dispositions of property. -- BD2412 ^talk 19:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose. --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 22:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose What the heck is "private law"? Civil law is only commonly used (as opposed, perhaps, to vulgarly used) to refer to non-criminal law. If articles or subcategories don't fit, move them, don't rename the category to something obscure or obtuse. 12.73.195.24 02:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proposed name is baffling not clear. Osomec 16:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 04:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely to have more than its two current articles. tregoweth 19:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• AAAHH! real Deletion. ∞Who?¿? 00:08, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. For real. siafu 00:12, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Osomec 16:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 08:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The content of the category is more-less redundant to the Pornocracy article, not to mention that the term got hijacked for couple of medieval popes. Pavel Vozenilek 19:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note this is staying open for another 7 days due to not being tagged with {{cfd}}. Closes 1 Oct. ∞Who?¿? 04:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Extant list in article is more approriate. siafu 00:14, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Osomec 16:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename as proposed. ∞Who?¿? 04:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tourism in Britain and category:British visitor attractions

• I can see no reason for these not to be in prevalent "United Kingdom" format to explicitly include Northern Ireland. The lead article is called Tourism in the United Kingdom and many of the subcategories already refer to the UK. Rename as category:Tourism in the United Kingdom and category:Visitor attractions in the United Kingdom respectively. CalJW 07:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Umm. I'm sorry? "British" explicitly includes NI. Anyone who says it doesn't is either being rather revisionist or overly hopeful towards their POV. James F. (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Tourism in Britain to Tourism in the United Kingdom, as that is less confusing, especially as we will eventually need historical Great Britain categories, I would think. Rename category:British visitor attractions to category:Tourism in the United Kingdom as only people are categorised by nationality. Hiding talk 16:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You say to rename the two categories to the same name, unless you mean something specific by renaming a category to an article? -Splash^talk 02:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both as proposed. There are more like this. Osomec 18:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both. This is good for consistency. -Splash^talk 02:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge/rename. ∞Who?¿? 02:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category accounts for there being 33 subcategories in category:Unitary authorities of Scotland when there are only 32 unitary authorities in Scotland. The Western Isles and the Outer Hebrides are the same entity. So let's delete this and rename its only subcategory category:Natives of the Western Isles to category:Natives of the Outer Hebrides and place it in category:Outer Hebrides. CalJW 07:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I actually created those two cats by mistake last night, not realising that there is an Outer Hebrides cat. It is very confusing, because officially, even in English-language contexts, the islands are known by their Scottish Gaelic language name Na h-Eileanan Siar, which in English has usually been translated as Western Isles (that is actually also the literal translation of Na h-Eileanan Siar), but in Wikipedia is Outer Hebrides (actually their geographical name, not their administrative name).

As I created the duplication, I had better fix it myself without further ado. However, would it not be more sensible to call the article plus the associated category by one of the two official names, rather than the geographical name?--Mais oui! 09:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Could we do a soft redirect? Hiding talk 16:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge/rename/delete as proposed. Osomec 16:11, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note added a soft redirect to both categories as requested. ∞Who?¿? 02:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who?¿? 02:05, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This one escaped the recent mass renaming to add "and structures" because it is a sub-cat of category:Buildings and structures in Turkey. Merge into that and then delete. With luck that will be the last of this issue. CalJW 04:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and be done. siafu 00:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge ∞Who?¿? 05:27, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename all. ∞Who?¿? 01:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is to finally rename all of the directors cats per the previous two consensus (first, second) to Films directed by Foo. Previously not renamed to standard due to all of the subs not being tagged, I have tagged all of the relevant subs this time. Too many to list, see Category:Films by director ∞Who?¿? 00:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wheeeeee. Someone's bot is gonna be busy. Rename as per nom. :) TexasAndroid 13:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting we should find someone with wheels? :) Splash^talk 02:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hehe, well at least it would be for something useful, and we can let them put "on wheels" in the edit summary. ∞Who?¿? 03:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Osomec 18:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. -Splash^talk 02:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Osomec 16:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.