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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preseli & South Pembrokeshire are two defunct district councils that were combined to Pembrokeshire when Dyfed was broken up. Althaugh the Countryside Council for Wales, who designate SSSIs, uses old districts I propose to move it to just Pembrokeshire as that would be in line all the other subcategories of Pembrokeshire as the category includes both former districts anyway. see talkpageAgathoclea 23:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, if only to remove ampersand. David Kernow 23:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 01:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename according to this proposal, don't see any reason why this needs to be this specific, I doubt it will become a large subject and can simply be explained in the body of the articles if need be.(Sloman 08:39, 16 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Official website, album covers, etc. all omit the space between "W." and K." Dylan 22:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. It should be consistent with article name also. --musicpvm 00:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In the spirit of full disclosure, I only recently changed the article name from Andrew W. K.. Dylan 00:23, 15 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to merge Category:Australian plants into Category:Flora of Australia. These categories have essentially duplicate scopes, and flora is the term used for plants for Wikipedia categories, as per Category:Flora by country. Kurieeto 22:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom into category that is consistent with others. --musicpvm 00:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:10, 15 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

transfer from PROD. Prod does not and should not handle categories - 132.205.45.148 22:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a category for this: Category:Television_meteorologists; This page was probably a typo, and then ignored.

User:RobJ1981 20060714062956

• Delete duplicate 132.205.45.148 22:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete --musicpvm 00:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as typo. David Kernow 23:49, 15 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 14:30, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biota is the flora, fauna, and any other life of a region. Category:Flora and fauna of Hong Kong is a sub-cat of Category:Biota by country, but almost all other sub-cats of Category:Biota by country use the "Biota of x" wording. This renaming is proposed for reasons of consistency and clarity. Kurieeto 22:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency with other categories. --musicpvm 00:10, 15 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The names are almost synonymous. Schzmo 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Historical African monarchies. All empires are monarchies, but not all monarchies are Empires. The overuse of the term "Empire" for African monarchies is a POV attempt to provide African history with some extra dignity. Chicheley 09:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If renamed per nom, rename to Category:Ancient empires of Africa. David Kernow 23:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename differently In looking at other continents' categories, Former countries of..., is the standard. Category:Former countries in Asia, Category:Former countries in South America, Category:Former countries in North America, and they even included non-countries, like empires, kingdoms, etc. -- MrDolomite | Talk 00:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is part of the Category:Former monarchies hierachy, not the former countries hierarchy, and the two aren't the same thing. Although there are no other continental categories in Category:Former monarchies, there is material there to create Category:Former monarchie of Asia and Category:Former monarchies of Europe. Not all former monarchies are associated with defunct countries, eg Germany still exists even though the German Empire doesn't, and the Central African Republic is the Central African Empire without a mad dictator with a taste for ermine. Choalbaton 01:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Historical African monarchies per Chicheley. Sumahoy 17:38, 16 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Multiracial entertainers
• Category:Multiracial-Germans

These categories are POV and not useful. Everyone is multiracial and to illustrate this I found it on the article about Edward Furlong while working on classification of vegetarians, and the only evidence of his multiracial status is that he is in two categories for European hyphenated Americans. Chicheley 19:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Eh... is it worth a merge to the appropriate Category:People by ethnic or national origin subcats? If not, baleet. Luna Santin 20:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC) (see below) Luna Santin 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Category:Multiracial people was deleted last month, so these should not be exceptions. --musicpvm 00:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both. Where is your evidence, Chicheley, that "everyone is multiracial"? If that's true then couldn't we say "everyone is German" and delete all the German ethnic categories? Denying the existence of race is a racist POV that you and a few other editors have been forcing down everyone else's throats as a way of denying the existence of real multiracial people. I am very offended that these categories keep getting deleted while other categories that pretend to sort everyone into SINGLE ethnic and racial groups survive. They are equally valid. Finally, if Edward Furlong isn't multiracial, you and everyone else in this forum knows that the appropriate solution is to remove him from the category, not to delete the entire category.--M@rēino 15:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since Choalbaton has accused me of violating WP:CIVIL, I am striking the offending comments. I apologize for offending him and, if it is the case, for offending Chicheley. I want to clarify that I do not think that Chicheley is racist, but that I do think that the policy of denying the existence of race as a social construct that neutral research tools like Wikipedia should cover is racist. --M@rēino 18:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not accept that that is a meaningful apology or a withdrawal of the accusation. On the contrary, it is a repeat of the accusation against me, musicpvm, Casper Claiborne, Choalbaton and the other editors who have voted to delete these categories. It is intimidation and I would ask you to completely withdraw your use of the "racism" slur. Chicheley 22:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I refuse to back down from what is morally right. That would be succumbing to your intimidation. --M@rēino 15:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If somebody is multiracial, place them into multiple racial categories. For example, Mariah Carey is in Category:Irish-Americans, Category:African-American singers, and Category:Venezuelan-Americans. But it does not make sense to place every mutiracial entertainer in the world into a multiracial category. Categories like this can and do create conflict. Before Category:Multiracial people was deleted, I saw several disagreements at entertainers' take pages about whether they should be included in the category or not. The majority of African Americans have multiracial ancestry, so should they all be placed in the category? This is just one question that arises. List of multiracial people already exists, so I don't see a use in an additional category. --musicpvm 00:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accusing people of racism for disagreeing with you on a categorisation matter is a very serious breach of Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Choalbaton 01:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mareino. --Shortfuse 00:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 01:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if you can get a list of irish people, african american people, etc, why not people of mixed race? Colorfulharp233 21:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ireland is a country, not an ethnic group. Category:Irish-Americans however is an ethnic category, and should be deleted, along with every other ethnic category. Chicheley 22:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to appropriate subcats of Category:People by ethnic or national origin, or else delete. Luna Santin 23:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete U.S. centric. Reflects U.S. census definitions. Would people have felt differently about such a category in the days when it was Apartheid South Africa that was interested in defining people as mixed race, ie "coloured"? 11:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both, the Multiracial Americans cat was also deleted. The criteria isn't clear enough and "race" isn't clearly defined (these lists/cats tend to treat "Latino" as a race, even tho it isn't). List of multiracial people and the Multiracial Brits cat should probably be deleted too. Crumbsucker 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument might have worked for the previous iterations of the multiracial cats, but this cat is, and has always been, defined by reference to the OTHER Wikipedia race cats. Therefore, its criteria is of exactly the same clarity as the other race cats. --M@rēino 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both per nom. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both -- based on prior precedents. --William Allen Simpson 16:31, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, based on precedent, nomination, science and logic. Vizjim 20:32, 24 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship --Kbdank71 14:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To fit the naming scheme at Category:Voivodships of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Sticks out like a sore thumb. Also matches main article. I learned a new word, today, cool. Luna Santin 20:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Update with additional name change. The actual move, per discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Geography of Poland, should be to Category:Warmian-Masurian Voivodeship (an extra "e" in Voivodeship). --Elonka 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk}  14:15, 23 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:56, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This image category needs to indicate its purpose is so in its name. Kurieeto 18:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support yep, the original category name would imply a group of articles about the different kinds of charts -- MrDolomite | Talk 19:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:52, 15 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename to category:People murdered by the Mafia --Kbdank71 20:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous. "High profile cases" can go into the Category:Assassinated Italian people or Category:Assassinated Italian politicians. Intangible 18:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename category:People murdered by the Mafia. I've been thinking of nominating this, because the name is too informal, and meaningless until you have read about it. One of them is American actually, but they can all go in category:People murdered by the Mafia. Chicheley 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Chicheley.--M@rēino 15:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People murdered by the Mafia per Chicheley; "Excellent cadavers" suggested the (miscapitaliz/sed) name of a rock band or the like to me!  Regards, David Kernow 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category:People murdered by the Mafia as suggested by Chicheley. Robert Mercer 21:30, 16 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:47, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Transportation in South America --> Category:Transport in South America
• Category:Transportation in Argentina --> Category:Transport in Argentina
• Category:Transportation in Buenos Aires --> Category:Transport in Buenos Aires
• Category:Transportation in Bolivia --> Category:Transport in Bolivia
• Category:Transportation in Brazil --> Category:Transport in Brazil
• Category:Transportation in Chile --> Category:Transport in Chile
• Category:Transportation in Colombia --> Category:Transport in Colombia
• Category:Transportation in Ecuador --> Category:Transport in Ecuador
• Category:Transportation in Paraguay --> Category:Transport in Paraguay
• Category:Transportation in Peru --> Category:Transport in Peru
• Category:Transportation in Venezuela --> Category:Transport in Venezuela
• Rename all to match main articles. Europe and Oceania were already renamed and Africa is on the same way. - Darwinek 18:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you mean by "main articles"? Thanks. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-17 21:39 (UTC)
  • I now have an answer to my question. Darwinek himself, starting a few months ago, in violation of MoS guidelines on respecting national varieties of English, began a systematic renaming of nearly every single article called "Transportation in X" to "Transport in X". So what he means here, by "to match main articles", is that part of the justification for the category renaming is his own guideline-violating renamings of the articles themselves. Letting this category renaming happen seems like a very bad precedent for the WP community. We should slow down (vote no here, for now) and discuss this. Note, however, the issue is not quite as clear as one might think. (Darwinek was wrong, but the solution isn't obvious, I mean.) Please see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories). --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-19 -22:40 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom. Chicheley 19:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Victor12 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:11, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 23:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Nonomy 21:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename. MoS is clear on dialect differences: Go with the first version used (as long as the topic isn't about a country with its own version of English). --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-17 21:43 (UTC)
• Do not rename per CulturalFreedom's reasoning. I have raised the issue at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)#National varieties of English and category consistency, as it appears to be against current guidelines. Ziggurat 22:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not rename per Cultural Freedom. This would set a very bad precedent that could lead to many battles about regional differences of English. The only way to settle these is to follow the MoS. -- Samuel Wantman 22:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I trust user:CalJW examined these as well for adherence to local naming practices. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Cultural Freedom, Ziggurat, SamuelWantman, and Rick Block. There's a well-established policy governing these things. Violate the policy, and Wikipedia will become an anarchic free-for-all. And since there's a policy, there is no need for a poll at all. It's surprising that an administrator (yes, Darwinek is an administrator) has conducted such an illegitimate campaign. We can possibly think of improving the policy in the future, though, toward the use of a balanced, consistent mix of different English dialects. JackLumber. 12:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then why are you defending inconsistency? ReeseM 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all The current randomness in naming help no-one. Hawkestone 12:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose for reasons listed under Transport in Asia discussions. Vegaswikian 22:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. ReeseM 02:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly Oppose W.C. 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - Latin American governments would appear to use “transportation” (e.g., Ministry of Transportation) as the neutral term (rather than “transport”.) ^[1] Local entities such as Sociadad Poruaria ^[2] also use “transportation” (e.g., Minister of Transportation) and probably know more about how English is used in their region than the Esperantist 20 year-old Czech ESL user of British English (Darwinek?--see profile) who proposed this rename vote. (If reference footnotes don’t work, the same information is available at the top of this linked page.) W.C. 03:25, 20 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per consensus on WP:SHIPS about reorganization of Category:Ships by country. See below vote on Category:Royal Navy battlecruisers for more extensive description. If you vote against this proposed rename, please participate in discussion on WP:SHIPS to come up with a better proposal. TomTheHand 17:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Spot87 17:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Victor12 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Destroyers of the United States has a rather unfortunate name :-) Bluap 18:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please elaborate as to why that is an unfortunate name? --Spot87 18:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe he's joking that it sounds kind of like a category for people or things which want to or are capable of destroying the United States ;-) TomTheHand 18:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • My fault, I understand now. --Spot87 18:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prediction: This category will be used for POV labeling of disliked politicians. Film at 11. Nevertheless, Support if consistent per WP:SHIPS. --Dhartung | Talk 06:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm. Looking at WP:SHIPS, I can see there's some problems with the current categorization scheme; I appreciate any efforts to fix that. I'm thinking it would make sense to go for something like Category:Naval ships by country >> Category:Naval ships of the United States >> Category:Destroyers of the United States. That said, would Category:Naval destroyers of the United States be more specific? Or would that just be silly, as an overall scheme? Luna Santin 21:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree that that structure would be a good plan; I think I will implement it alongside my current plan, Ships by country -> Ships of the United States -> Naval ships of the United States -> Destroyers of the United States. I believe "naval destroyers" sounds awkward, and it's a term that I've never heard used. I don't think that there's any need to disambiguate, as I doubt anyone will create a legitimate "destroyers of the US" cat planning to put in people who are trying to destroy the US ;-) I believe the context will make it clear that the category is about naval vessels: it will contain ship articles and will be a member of ship categories. TomTheHand 21:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, so maybe I'm being dumb, on that one. =) It'd be even worse on some of the other ones (naval battlecruisers?). Otherwise, that all sounds good to me, seems like those should work fine in parallel. Support rename, just so's we're all squared off. Luna Santin 22:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as this is indeed consistant with current standards, including WP:Ships discussions. Josh 20:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:United States Navy destroyers. I was originally thinking of the ships of foo format, but the seperate specific navy categories are fine as distict from Category:Destroyers of the United States. Josh 01:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose GraemeLeggett 16:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per GraemeLeggett Jooler 18:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Important comment from nom to closing admin We're revising our plan for the renaming of ship categories, as the renames proposed here have provoked a lot of attention and gotten a lot of new people involved in the planning process. My other nominations from this day have clearly failed, but this one is less clear-cut; I'd like to withdraw my nomination and request that this rename not be performed. In the future a different series of renames may be proposed and will be based on the consensus of a larger group of people. TomTheHand 14:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Graeme.--Kross^Talk 06:49, 23 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 07:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category has only just been created. It is much to vague. There are sufficient top level U.S categories already. There is a lot of overlap with Category:American society, which is a standard category. Sumahoy 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sumahoy 15:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every subcategory of Category:United States itself is at least partially relevant to "life in the United States", broadly interpreted, so they could all be added to this category, making it a duplicate of its parent. Twittenham 15:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless category. Cloachland 16:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Golfcam 16:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 19:51, 14 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians by time period
• Category:Wikipedians in the 2000s

All Wikipedians are in the 2000s. I don't understand the point of this either. I'm a Wikipedian in the 2000s, and I could still be a Wikipedian in the 2010s and the 2020s (if the project lasts that long). --Schzmo 15:30, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete! Please! TomTheHand 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It lacks any useful purpose. --Victor12 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 19:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• weak keep. I've seem much worse. The idea seems to be that you add a category for each year you've been active. Ceartainly more pertinent to Wikipedia that "Wikipedians by pet" or similar nonsense. dab (ᛏ) 20:40, 24 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 20:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following are generally titled "Newspapers in region". I think these titles would benefit by being made more precise, with a suggested renaming to "Newspapers published in region".

• Category:Newspapers in Alberta to Category:Newspapers published in Alberta
• Category:Canadian alternative weekly newspapers to Category:Alternative weekly newspapers published in Canada
• Category:Newspapers in British Columbia to Category:Newspapers published in British Columbia
• Category:Newspapers in Manitoba to Category:Newspapers published in Manitoba
• Category:National newspapers in Canada to Category:National newspapers published in Canada
• Category:Newspapers in New Brunswick to Category:Newspapers published in New Brunswick
• Category:Newspapers in Newfoundland and Labrador to Category:Newspapers published in Newfoundland and Labrador
• Category:Newspapers in Nova Scotia to Category:Newspapers published in Nova Scotia
• Category:Newspapers in Ontario to Category:Newspapers published in Ontario
• Category:Newspapers in Prince Edward Island to Category:Newspapers published in Prince Edward Island
• Category:Quebec newspapers to Category:Newspapers published in Quebec
• Category:Newspapers in Saskatchewan to Category:Newspapers published in Saskatchewan
• Category:Canadian student newspapers to Category:Student newspapers published in Canada
• Category:Newspapers in the Canadian territories to Category:Newspapers published in the Canadian territories

--Kurieeto 15:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Currently wording is fine. Ardenn 15:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. The proposed name describes the contents accurately, while the current names do not. Twittenham 15:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Cloachland 16:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Chicheley 19:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• For what it's worth, the similar American "newspapers by state" categories are named in the format "Newspapers of State". However this is decided, either those should be renamed too, or these should be renamed to the "of" format instead. There should be a clear standard for this type of category, rather than Canadian ones and American ones following different standards, but as long as the need for a standard is maintained, I have no preference as to which format should be that standard. Bearcat 21:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of the old category names are sloppy and we are now moving towards more accurate names. Chicheley 09:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Quebec newspapers to Category:newspapers in Quebec for consistency. -- User:Docu
• Keep Category:Canadian student newspapers for consistency with other by country categories. -- User:Docu
• Keep current name for all other categories listed/Oppose rename. "published" renders category names needlessly long. -- User:Docu
  • Comment Please don't cast separate votes in this way as it creates a misleading at-a-glance impression of how the discussion is going, which may have an influence on who chooses to comment after you. Chicheley 09:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Shortfuse 00:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Choalbaton 01:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The current ones are fine. Adding of the word published is redundent because when someone sees something like "Newspapers in Prince Edward Island", they would assume that the majority of readers are from PEI, and therefore it must be published in PEI. The one catogory that may need a change is Category:National newspapers in Canada maybe to something like Canadian National Newspapers, which again would sugest readers in Canada, and that it must be published in Canada.-Royalguard11^Talk 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. The current names are sloppy. ReeseM 02:15, 20 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 20:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the below proposed deletion of Royal Navy battlecruisers for the reasons for this merge. TomTheHand 14:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Spot87 17:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Victor12 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment someone should add a definition to the latter, so that it does not become populated with people accused of attempting to destroy Britain.--M@rēino 15:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. TomTheHand 13:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a series of templates for ship category definitions 'cathead X of|Foo' that work well for this. Added it to this cat. Josh 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as above. Sorry, looking back into this one, the category is correct as is. Josh 20:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose categorisation works well at moment, no need to fix it.GraemeLeggett 16:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per GraemeLeggett Jooler 18:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Destroyers of the Royal Navy, maybe as a category name, but not of the United Kingdom (strictly speaking, I believe the RN is the British Navy, as apposed to that of the United Kingdom -- I may be wrong on that, though. Ratarsed 19:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:Jooler, User:GraemeLeggett Emoscopes ^Talk 10:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The Royal Navy is the proper name for the Brit's navy.--Kross^Talk 06:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I was not trying to claim that "Royal Navy" was not the proper name for the navy, but rather to remove the proper name for the navy from the categories; the Royal Navy is a rare exception for which the proper name is currently being used, and naming by country would be more accessible to people who are unfamiliar with the subject. TomTheHand 13:01, 23 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 20:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the past several weeks we've been discussing a reorganization of the Category:Ships by country structure. Part of the plan is to categorize by country instead of by navy, so this category is made redundant by Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom, which is fully organized according to the proposal (therefore there is no need for a merge, just a deletion. TomTheHand 13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see discussion here or a summary of the proposal here if you are interested. See Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom for an example category that has been put together according to the proposal. This has been in discussion for about three weeks on WP:SHIPS and I believe we have consensus there. TomTheHand 13:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one last thing. If you vote against this, it would be greatly appreciated if you could drop by WP:SHIPS and help us improve the proposal. I am aware of the disadvantages of naming these categories by country. However, we've discussed the disadvantages of naming by navy as well, and I believe naming by country is a better decision for reasons discussed on WP:SHIPS. TomTheHand 13:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Victor12 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose both It isn't empty and there are 28 categories of Royal Navy ships. Cloachland 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is redundant; everything that it should contain is contained in the new Category:Battlecruisers of the United Kingdom. Everything that BC of UK does not contain should not be in there. There are 28 categories of Royal Navy ships, which will all be renamed, merged, and/or deleted, per extensive discussion on WP:SHIPS. If you care strongly about ship categorization, please head over to WP:SHIPS and help us come up with a better proposal. Please don't oppose the delete based on such a cursory glance. TomTheHand 16:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As discussed on WP:SHIPS. --Spot87 16:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I am aware of the discussion on WP:Ships. GraemeLeggett 16:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per GraemeLeggett Jooler 18:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per User:Jooler, User:GraemeLeggett Emoscopes ^Talk 10:16, 20 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Transportation in Africa --> Category:Transport in Africa
• Category:Transportation in Algeria --> Category:Transport in Algeria
• Category:Transportation in Angola --> Category:Transport in Angola
• Category:Transportation in Burkina Faso --> Category:Transport in Burkina Faso
• Category:Transportation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo --> Category:Transport in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Category:Transportation in Egypt --> Category:Transport in Egypt
• Category:Transportation in Ethiopia --> Category:Transport in Ethiopia
• Category:Transportation in Guinea-Bissau --> Category:Transport in Guinea-Bissau
• Category:Transportation in Morocco --> Category:Transport in Morocco
• Category:Transportation in Senegal --> Category:Transport in Senegal
• Category:Transportation in Tunisia --> Category:Transport in Tunisia
• Rename all to match other categories and also to match main articles. - Darwinek 12:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all The English speaking countries in Africa are Commonwealth countries, and if the naming is made consistent for the whole continent, that will simplify matters. Twittenham 15:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Cloachland 16:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move only those where Commonwealth spelling is used. One wouldn't expect transport in Liberia, for instance. — Instantnood 15:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the beginning and end of the list of relevant examples, and you don't seem to have noticed that it has been left out. Choalbaton 01:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Choalbaton 01:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename 80% of African countries use transport, so the system will be easier to use if that is increased to 98%. Sumahoy 17:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Nonomy 21:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I trust user:CalJW examined these as well and ensured they follow local naming practices. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Transport is clearly the main usage in Africa. Apart from the British Commonwealth countries in Africa there are many Francophone countries on the continent, and the French for transport is transport. Hawkestone 13:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose for reasons listed under Transport in Asia discussions. Vegaswikian 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • A comment for the closer of this discussion. While this nomination may be to change, it needs to be viewed with the votes for the similar nominations. To change this and not the others may not be the best solution. If the others are to keep or for no consensus, then that should probably apply here as well. Otherwise we may make things more confusing. Vegaswikian 22:34, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • A comment for the closer of this discussion. There is absolutely no reason why this discussion should not be treated separately like any other. Vegaswikian's inference that not doing so might reduce inconsistency is false as a majority of these categories already use "transport" and it is essential that the inconsistency is maintained for the English speaking countries at least. ReeseM 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. ReeseM 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. W.C. 05:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment - English language Wikipedia articles are written for a global Internet audience rather than for a local audience. As we can see from countless examples in British magazines and newspapers, British authors writing for a British audience don’t suddenly change to another variety of English when addressing North American issues after all. In the same sense, then, these Wikipedia articles need not switch varieties of English for every change in locale. The majority of the global Internet audience largely does not use British English. And this is can be seen for example by examining the government website of China for example. (Also, China’s literacy rate is over 90%, whereas the high population regions where the British variety can be found, that rate is 47% such as in Pakistan, meaning the latter's online readership is very likely to be comparatively much smaller.) The government of China's official site uses “theater” and not the British “theatre”, “center” and not “centre”. Even British newspapers like the Guardian use both nouns “transport” and “transportation” (i.e., “transportation system”). Some examples of "transportaion" from the British press include "...risks posed by the transportation of the weapons at 2.4 in a billion..." in Randerson's "Trident convoys carry risk of nuclear blast" (2006, July 6, in The Guardian), as well as "...the smooth transportation of 40,000 fans daily from Dublin..." in Donegan's "Ireland labours over Ryder Cup roadworks" (2006, July 8 in The Guardian). W.C. 18:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose for reasons stated. I would consider renaming those where local usage favors transport. These should be discussed individually. -- Samuel Wantman 06:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SamuelWantman. --Cultural Freedom 2006-07-20 08:00 (UTC)

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 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Beijingers --> Category:People from Beijing
• Category:Shanghainese --> Category:People from Shanghai
• Rename both, common rename as with the American cities below. -- Darwinek 11:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support: Per nom. and general move to "People from X". —Wknight94 (talk) 12:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Twittenham 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Cloachland 16:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Kurieeto 16:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename/merge, but keep the original categories as {{categoryredirect}}. — Instantnood 15:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge / Redirect per Instantnood -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:27, 16 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into the standard category. Chicheley 10:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. - Darwinek 11:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Twittenham 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as the article is at List of Presidents of the Government (Spain) shouldn't the category be named similiarly? -- User:Docu
  • They are normally referred to as Prime Ministers in English. Spain is a monarchy, so use of the word President is likely to mislead readers. Chicheley 10:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Sumahoy 17:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. --tomf688 (talk - email) 19:31, 21 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't normally divide between past and present. Ministries change often, and unless you already have a detailed knowledge of Nigerian politics, in which case you don't need separate categories, there is no way of knowing whether or not the allocation of articles is up to date, rendering the split useless either way. Chicheley 10:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as above. Chicheley 10:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Twittenham 15:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, although I'm beginning to wonder if this and similar categories ought to carry a one/two-sentence explanation that those listed might be current or former, for the sake of (relative) newcomers to the encyclopedia...?  Regards, David Kernow 00:07, 16 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for a minor rapper. It has existed for over a month, and the only article it contains is the one about the rapper. --musicpvm 05:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 09:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Cloachland 16:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 00:07, 16 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians with an age
• Category:Immortal Wikipedians

All of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedians with an age were deleted last month, leaving only the parent category and a joke subcategory. Delete them both to discourage recreation of this ill-advised series of categories. - EurekaLott 04:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Joke userboxes are fine, but they should not be made into categories. --musicpvm 04:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Chicheley 16:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ) 10:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Elonka 22:21, 23 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 15:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following should be renamed per previous discussions.

• Category:Chicagoans to Category:People from Chicago
• Category:Bostonians to Category:People from Boston
• Category:San Franciscans to Category:People from San Francisco
• Category:Milwaukeeans to Category:People from Milwaukee
• Category:San Diegans to Category:People from San Diego
• Category:Seattleites to Category:People from Seattle
• Category:Memphians to Category:People from Memphis
• Category:St. Louisans to Category:People from St. Louis
• Category:Tucsonans to Category:People from Tucson
• Category:Cincinnatians to Category:People from Cincinnati
• Category:Nashvillians to Category:People from Nashville
• Category:Kansas Citians to Category:People from Kansas City
• Category:Las Vegans to Category:People from Las Vegas
• Category:El Pasoans to Category:People from El Paso, Texas
• Category:Miamians to Category:People from Miami
• Category:Sacramentans to Category:People from Sacramento, California
• Category:Wichitans to Category:People from Wichita, Kansas
• Category:Oaklanders to Category:People from Oakland, California
• Category:Louisvillians to Category:People from Louisville
• Category:Rochesterians to Category:People from Rochester, New York
• Category:Mobilians to Category:People from Mobile, Alabama
• Category:Savannahians to Category:People from Savannah, Georgia
• Category:Knoxvillians to Category:People from Knoxville
• Category:Lexingtonians to Category:People from Lexington, Kentucky
• Category:Santa Monicans to Category:People from Santa Monica, California
• Category:Daytonians to Category:People from Dayton, Ohio
• Category:Berkeleyans to Category:People from Berkeley, California
• Category:Little Rockers to Category:People from Little Rock
• Category:Schenectadians to Category:People from Schenectady
• Category:Orlandoans to Category:People from Orlando, Florida
• Category:Saratogians to Category:People from Saratoga Springs
• Category:Jacksonvillians to Category:People from Jacksonville
• Category:Fresnans to Category:People from Fresno, California
• Category:Bakersfieldians to Category:People from Bakersfield
• Category:Newarkers to Category:People from Newark, New Jersey
• Category:Saint Paulites to Category:People from Saint Paul, Minnesota
• Category:Pasadenans to Category:People from Pasadena, California
• Category:Tampans to Category:People from Tampa
• Category:Spokanites to Category:People from Spokane
• Category:San Joseans to Category:People from San Jose, California
• Category:Yonkersites to Category:People from Yonkers
• Category:Lubbockites to Category:People from Lubbock, Texas
• Category:Montgomerians to Category:People from Montgomery, Alabama
• Category:Indianapolitans to Category:People from Indianapolis
• Category:Akronites to Category:People from Akron, Ohio
• Category:Honolulans to Category:People from Honolulu
• Category:Ypsilantians to Category:People from Ypsilanti
• Category:Fort Lauderdalians to Category:People from Fort Lauderdale
• Category:Newburghians to Category:People from Newburgh, New York
• Category:Duluthans to Category:People from Duluth, Minnesota
• Category:San Clemente, CA people to Category:People from San Clemente

--musicpvm 03:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Against - There is a difference between people from a certain place and denizens. For instance, many of the Milwaukeeans may not have been born in the city but played a significant role in its development and had were likewise impacted by the community. Sulfur 03:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also against - "People from X" place de-characterizes each city. --KHill-LTown 04:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, all of these categories are in Category:People by American city so there is absolutely no reason they should be exceptions to the naming convention used by the 400 other subcategories. I don't see how somebody can significantly contribute to a city without having lived a portion of their life in the city. And if they have lived a portion of their life in a city (even if they were not born in it), it is not incorrect to say "People from". Some of these demonyms of the smaller cities are also extremely ambiguous. If you think every one of the subcategories in Category:People by American city should be renamed to ambiguous demonyms, then propose a mass renaming of all 463 categories, but it makes no sense for these 50 random categories to be inconsistent with the others. --musicpvm 04:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. While Las Vegans is used, I never heard Newburghians in all of my years living up there. If Newarkers was used, it was not a term in common usage. So one wonders how valid some of these demonyms are. In any case, 'People from' always works and since most categories already use this I see no reason not to change to the more common form. One critical factor for an encylopedia is how it treats details in a consistant manner. Let's not lose sight of what this decision is a part of. Vegaswikian 04:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• What's with adding state name disambiguations to some of the category names? How many Schenectadies and Ypsilantis and Spokanes are there? - EurekaLott 05:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mind removing the state from the three you mentioned, but I thought that without the state name, they would be amibiguous (not because there are other cities with the same name but because they are not major U.S. cities and most people may be unaware of where they are located). --musicpvm 05:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - per Sulfur. -Nogood 05:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support – most of these terms take me a second to figure out, and I am very familiar with U.S. geography. Nearly all of them also do not appear in their city's articles or anywhere else on Wikipedia. I greatly prefer names that are instantly recognizable when browsing, and predictable, so that they can be found through search or by typing the URL directly. ×Meegs 09:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all. Little Rockers. Haha. --*kate speak 09:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all per nom. Ease of use should be the first priority. Osomec 09:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all So far as most non-locals are concerned most of these, when seen at the bottom of a category, could just as easily be a religious sect or a fraternal society as a place. Chicheley 09:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support all: Per nom. Also, half of these don't even sound like words and sound unencyclopedic. Duluthans gets very few hits on Google. I live in Tampa and I've never heard the word Tampans in my life. —Wknight94 (talk) 10:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. -- Darwinek 11:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. I strongly support. User:Arual 13:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Rename all per nom. Kurieeto 13:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose. I'm opposed to renaming these friendly (and encyclopedic) names for residents of various cities to a sterile, mechanical version. If this passes, the Wikipedia will be striving toward becoming boring. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 13:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Stevietheman. Long live the demonym!--M@rēino 14:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Due to the convention of using common names. However, wherever a denonym is used the People from Foo form should also exist as a category redirect. That way, non-local users can quickly find what they are looking for, even though they may be unfamilier with local terminology. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this would be an excellent compromise that resolves the concern behind this nomination. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 17:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I concur. Sulfur 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No it doesn't. You're all only thinking about one set of circumstances - people typing the category name in the search box. I hardly ever type categories in the search box, but when I see a category on the bottom of an article I like to be sure what it means. Golfcam 01:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why must we make Wikipeda a sterile corporatized document just because a few people are too stupid to understand what people in communities call themselves? —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 15:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. --Moreau36 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Actually, let me qualify my support a little. How are you deciding which city should have the state afterwards? Schenectady, New York is the only city named "Schenectady" in the whole world - in fact, I've seen newspaper articles written about that fact. So, if we don't need "Florida" in Category:People from Miami, Florida even though there's a city called Miami, Ohio, then we certainly shouldn't need the "New York" in Category:People from Schenectady, New York. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the state name from a few more. Are there any others that you think need to be removed? --musicpvm 17:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:People from Miami should be like Category:People from Georgia, a member of Category:Disambiguation categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think a good rule of thumb for when to use state name disambiguation in category names is to see if the city name alone redirects to the article for the city in question and is not a disambiguation page. If if does, then there likely won't be confusion about the city to which the category refers. By that measure the categories for Miami would not require a state name, nor would those for Tampa, Memphis, Cincinnati, Nashville, Knoxville, Jacksonville, Bakersfield and Yonkers. - EurekaLott 03:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • That makes sense. I've removed the states from those. --musicpvm 04:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. I concur with both the redirect compromise and the state-name-suffix point made by EurekaLott. Only the largest cities tend to have certain demonyms anyway; my small hometown has three that I've heard, each only rarely. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very valid point. If there are multiple demonyms, which do you use? People of avoids this problem. Vegaswikian 08:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Casper Claiborne 10:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. demonyms are take up less space and reduce language 'sterility' Mayumashu 12:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If the decision is to rename, then keep all existing categories as {{categoryredirect}}s, or else count mine as an oppose vote. — Instantnood 19:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Accessibility trumps style. Choalbaton 01:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all But really I favor a less specific form like "people connected with". Golfcam 01:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. I'm in favour of a common style. It makes sense to me that we prioritise a common global style for speakers of English above the local knowledge of any minority. And the current guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization_of_people#By_residence does suggest a subsidiary option of using demonymns. --Mereda 15:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Sumahoy 17:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to improve accessibility and understanding and prevent time wasting discussions about which demonym is correct. Hawkestone 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Encyclopedias are supposed to be bland. Twittenham 12:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I already said I oppose this, but if this is ultimately approved, I would suggest that the demonyms, which are encyclopedic/notable in their own right, need to be referred to in text on the new "People from..." category pages. To remove the demonym categories without some accommodation would be a slap in the face of the people who live in these places. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 16:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Stevietheman's suggestion sounds like it would be a good addition to the guidelines. I'd be happy to carry that idea across to Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people if this batch of renaming gets a consensus.--Mereda 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I third this; thanks to the number of less-than-straightforward demonyms, "People from X" seems a better kind of standard to adopt, but each "People from X" category should mention a corresponding demonym (and a redirect made from a category with that demonym as its name). David Kernow 14:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in before this discussion closes and gets archived, I've put an idea for new guideline wording at Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#By_residence:_more_demonyms. --Mereda 11:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"San Diegans" must stay in honor of "Anchorman."

• Rename all to achieve consistency and accessibility. TomTheHand 16:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to achieve uniformity. Nonomy 21:19, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as it will keep things more consistent. I hate having to guess at category names. --Elonka 23:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, convert all the demonym categories listed to {{category redirect}}s. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. I know of nobody that calls themselves a "Newarker". Also for consistency. --Kbdank71 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. ReeseM 02:19, 20 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It only makes sense to have these categories when people are actually convicted for this. So I suggest renaming them to include that as such. Intangible 03:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:American tax evaders to Category:Convicted American tax evaders
• Category:Austrian tax evaders to Category:Convicted Austrian tax evaders
• Category:British tax evaders to Category:Convicted British tax evaders
• Category:Canadian tax evaders to Category:Convicted Canadian tax evaders
• Category:English tax evaders to Category:Convicted English tax evaders
• Category:French tax evaders to Category:Convicted French tax evaders
• Category:German tax evaders to Category:Convicted German tax evaders
• Category:Romanian tax evaders to Category:Convicted Romanian tax evaders
• Category:Russian tax evaders to Category:Convicted Russian tax evaders
• Category:Singaporean tax evaders to Category:Convicted Singaporean tax evaders
• Category:Swiss tax evaders to Category:Convicted Swiss tax evaders

• Oppose all -- all the criminal categories require convictions, including murderers. Just make a note on the category. --William Allen Simpson 03:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support this explanation.--M@rēino 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all As a general rule the categories do not require convictions. It is anachronistic to emphasis due process as in most times and places precious little due process has occurred. It also ignores deaths before trial and the articles about unidentified criminals. As tax evasion is a matter between citizen and state, perhaps the concept of "unconvicted tax evader" is less meaningful than "unconvicted murderer", but the current form should remain for consistency. Osomec 09:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not, however, support this explanation. That would allow someone to add "American tax evader" to every American Revolution patriot's bio.--M@rēino 14:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That might upset Americans, but they were rebels, not the demigods American mythology (aka American history), makes them out to be, and they did evade taxes, which were little more than a token contribution towards the cost of their own defence. How can you be a patriot of a country that doesn't exist. Americans' were far too prone to get carried away with their own rhetoric then, and haven't improved in the slightest in that regard in the following 230 years. Twittenham 15:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not nice. Golfcam 16:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it is true. And I am a US citizen. --Shortfuse 00:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Adding convicted makes it sound more like they are all guilty, but some of them might have been innocent anyway, like that Russian guy with the name that starts with K. Golfcam 16:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strong Oppose All Pointless. Unneeded. Creating a "Convicted" catagory will prompt the creation of an "Unconvicted" catagory for each country. Which is: Pointless. Unneeded. --Shortfuse 00:24, 16 July 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 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Rename -- There are 50 with hyphen and 46 without. The current by country standard is with hyphen for -Americans --William Allen Simpson 17:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Asian Americans to Category:Asian-Americans
• Category:European Americans to Category:European-Americans
• Category:Hispanic Americans to Category:Hispanic-Americans
• Category:African Americans to Category:African-Americans
• Category:Algerian Americans to Category:Algerian-Americans
• Category:Argentine Americans to Category:Argentine-Americans
• Category:Australian Americans to Category:Australian-Americans
• Category:Bahamian Americans to Category:Bahamian-Americans
• Category:Bangladeshi Americans to Category:Bangladeshi-Americans
• Category:Barbadian Americans to Category:Barbadian-Americans
• Category:Belarusian Americans to Category:Belarusian-Americans
• Category:Belgian Americans to Category:Belgian-Americans
• Category:Bolivian Americans to Category:Bolivian-Americans
• Category:Bulgarian Americans to Category:Bulgarian-Americans
• Category:Burmese Americans to Category:Burmese-Americans
• Category:Cambodian Americans to Category:Cambodian-Americans
• Category:Canadian Americans to Category:Canadian-Americans
• Category:Chinese Americans to Category:Chinese-Americans
• Category:Egyptian Americans to Category:Egyptian-Americans
• Category:English Americans to Category:English-Americans
• Category:Filipino Americans to Category:Filipino-Americans
• Category:Haitian Americans to Category:Haitian-Americans
• Category:Hmong Americans to Category:Hmong-Americans
• Category:Honduran Americans to Category:Honduran-Americans
• Category:Indonesian Americans to Category:Indonesian-Americans
• Category:Iraqi Americans to Category:Iraqi-Americans
• Category:Jamaican Americans to Category:Jamaican-Americans
• Category:Japanese Americans to Category:Japanese-Americans
• Category:Jordanian Americans to Category:Jordanian-Americans
• Category:Korean Americans to Category:Korean-Americans
• Category:Laotian Americans to Category:Laotian-Americans
• Category:Lebanese Americans to Category:Lebanese-Americans
• Category:Mexican Americans to Category:Mexican-Americans
• Category:Nigerian Americans to Category:Nigerian-Americans
• Category:Polynesian Americans to Category:Polynesian-Americans
• Category:Salvadoran Americans to Category:Salvadoran-Americans
• Category:Samoan Americans to Category:Samoan-Americans
• Category:Saudi Americans to Category:Saudi-Americans
• Category:Slovak Americans to Category:Slovak-Americans
• Category:Slovenian Americans to Category:Slovenian-Americans
• Category:Taiwanese Americans to Category:Taiwanese-Americans
• Category:Tamil Americans to Category:Tamil-Americans
• Category:Thai Americans to Category:Thai-Americans
• Category:Tongan Americans to Category:Tongan-Americans
• Category:Uruguayan Americans to Category:Uruguayan-Americans
• Category:Vietnamese Americans to Category:Vietnamese-Americans

• Oppose all There is no such standard and these do not meet any of the speedy renaming criteria. Chicheley 21:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • closer, please note vote changed below. --William Allen Simpson 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Moved from speedy --William Allen Simpson 02:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -- Apparently, Chicheley, you haven't been paying attention.
    1. Over the past few months at CfD, we've consistently named all categories "ethnic-country" with a hyphen, and "country ethnic" with a space, and after extensive discussion, adopted a POLICY: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage.
    2. Speedy renaming of a single hyphen is according to Wikipedia:Category deletion policy#Speedy criteria, which is also POLICY: 4. Non-conformance with "by country" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). These are "by country" categories.

    --William Allen Simpson 03:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • I actually support these renamings, but if you had been paying attention you would know that it is still controversial. This isn't the first time you have pushed procedure to the utmost in an attempt to support your own preference. Chicheley 09:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is nothing remaining to be controversial (about naming). The controversy is over. Folks exercized patience, covered this topic regularly over a period of more than 4 months (starting long before you began as editor), and went through all the long and tortuous steps for amending the policy. My goodness, the category naming convention policy itself was written and agreed in about a month last year! This was positively sluggish by comparison. --William Allen Simpson 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You foisted that change through yourself with the support of all of 2 other users. A lot more than 2 users have objected to hyphenisation on this page recently. Combined with your recent behaviour on the limited access roads/freeways/motorways issue, this shows a high-handed contempt for people who disagree with you. Chicheley 16:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are factually challenged. There have been many such decisions for many nationalities over a period of many months: in this discussion forum, the policy and guideline talk, and the Village Pump (policy). Just for Americans, I found over 30 of these, ranging from:
        • (12:5) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 19
        • (10:2) Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 3
      • I was only the experienced rapporteur that documented the facts. Please stop your disinformation and personal bias, reflected by your repeated WP:POINT flip-flop of position. --William Allen Simpson 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move and category redirect all (both hyphenated and unhyphenated) to Category:Fooian-American people since top category is Category:American people, to which Category:Americans {{category redirect}}s. Sorry, William; I have read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage again more carefully, I now support the nominated renames/redirects according to that convention. To clarify, are we categorising Fooian-Americans as American nationals who have a self-identified Fooian heritage, and Fooian Americans as Fooian nationals with a self-identified American heritage? --RobertG ♬ talk 09:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Since some of these categories have been swapped already, I shan't run the category redirect bot again on them until this one reaches a consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • He recently pushed that through himself, with little support. If you oppose the amendments, please vote against them, as is your right. Chicheley 16:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please stop repeating this disinformation and prevarication. --William Allen Simpson 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This is an excellent idea; it brings the Wiki convention in line with the American journalistic and literary convention.--M@rēino 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on statement of support by Chicheley, I'm going forward with Speedy. -- William Allen Simpson 14:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have objected to the speedies, and will object to any others of this type as William Allen Simpson implemented the so-called policy change himself with insufficient support. Chicheley 16:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please stop repeating this disinformation and prevarication. --William Allen Simpson 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all per Chicheley --Moreau36 14:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chicheley has changed her/his "vote", presumably yours changed as well. --William Allen Simpson 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all I will not have William Allen Simpson exploiting my good will in his continuing attempts to find short cuts to get what he wants. Chicheley 15:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all because they are "hyphenated Americans", but please don't use speedy. I don't like speedy renaming because I don't visit this page often enough to check all the items out before they go through. Golfcam 16:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all because the change achieves nothing of value. —  Stevie is the man!  ^{Talk | Work} 20:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to achieve consistency. I guess I can see how someone could logically say "no, we should make them all hyphen-less," but how can you say that we should leave half of them hyphenated and half of them not? TomTheHand 20:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jeez, I just noticed that hyphenating is official Wikipedia policy. How are people voting oppose, and why was this moved from speedy rename? TomTheHand 20:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I have already explained the "policy" was recently created by the nominator of this group, who has a tendency to game the system, with the support of a grand total of 2 other users. Far more than two people have voted against adding the hyphens on this page recently. It is an invalid policy and should be scrapped. Chicheley 10:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • So explain to me how it's better to have 50 hyphenated categories and 46 unhyphenated ones, and do so in a fashion that makes me believe you're not just disagreeing with the nom because of a grudge. TomTheHand 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not better, and there is no grudge, but I wish to prevent abuse of the system. Chicheley 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I understand, and I apologize for my harsh language. I wasn't looking at this from a larger perspective; I just think the rename is a genuinely good idea and I didn't think it was a good idea to oppose it to make a point. TomTheHand 15:27, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support But if a third attempt is made to speedy these I will restore my opposition. Chicheley 14:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer, please note change of vote. --William Allen Simpson 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Choalbaton 01:24, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Will the articles be moved as well? Every one of the articles is named without a hyphen, so I don't see why the categories should be named any differently. Also, the 50/46 numbers are incorrect as many category redirects were swapped before this nomination. --musicpvm 01:32, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the articles that differ will be renamed as well, and do not need to go through Cfd (just use move). --William Allen Simpson 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose all as article names are not hyphenated. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is easily fixed, and is contrary to current policy. --William Allen Simpson 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose All I didn't check on all of them, but I do know that many of these names correspond to how the articles on the subjects are named. For example, Chinese American does not have a hyphen. --- Hong Qi Gong 15:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chinese-American has a hyphen, while the American chinese redirect does not. More pages currently use the hyphenated versions (including such noteworthy pages as Languages in the United States and Yo Yo Ma), and I have restored the main page to its original state. You have apparently been moving and removing the hyphenated versions. You also should not remove the CfR tag during discussion! --William Allen Simpson 07:43, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chinese American did not have a hyphen when I commented here, and then you moved it to the hyphenated name. That's quite dishonest on your part. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And it's been pointed out by someone at Talk:Chinese American that the hyphen had been removed since 2003[1]. That would be 3 years before I started editing on Wikipedia. --- Hong Qi Gong 02:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - And here's a great reason why we should not have the hyphen: The US Census does not use it! [2]

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 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One-article category Stev0 07:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Like category:Albums by artist, category:Songs by artist doesn't care how many articles the subcategory has. All such songs get one of these categories, even Peanut Butter Jelly Time.--Mike Selinker 04:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. As a general rule, a one-article category is not ready. Let's wait at least until they have 2 or 3 notable songs. --M@rēino 14:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep unless the one article is deleted. Cloachland 16:17, 14 July 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.