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. if you want it renamed to muslim bring it back to cfd and note that it needs to be reparented. Syrthiss 21:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization. CalJW 00:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 05:40, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename it as Category:Muslim shrines in Pakistan. It is generic. --Spasage 06:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As present it is a subcategory of category:Sufi shrines. Unless this is changed and the articles are reallocated it should be renamed Category:Sufi shrines in Pakistan. If appropriate adjustments are made (different parent, appropriate articles added to category:Sufi shrines) then rename Category:Muslim shrines in Pakistan. Bhoeble 15:44, 7 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 all. Syrthiss 21:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the amusement park categories require renaming for consistency with the others and with the convention for categories of man-made things and places:

• Category:Alabama amusement parks --> Category:Amusement parks in Alabama
• Category:Alaska amusement parks --> Category:Amusement parks in Alaska
• Category:Arizona amusement parks --> Category:Amusement parks in Arizona
• Rename all Golfcam 00:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - although Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Man-made objects mentions countries not states, it seems a resonable convention. SeventyThree^(Talk) 01:20, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The convention has been applied to sub-state units many times. CalJW 18:41, 6 May 2006
• Rename all per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom and someone as well as myself try to remember to mention applying the convention to states as well as countries in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)...?  Regards, David Kernow 18:26, 7 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 with pluralization, correct captialization, and no countrification. huzzah!. Syrthiss 21:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pluralization. David Kernow 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC) (Moved from speedy)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Issues in the culture wars or Category:Issues in the U.S. culture wars. David Kernow 21:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC), amended 00:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC); 04:01, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Should be named Category:Issues in the culture wars. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. With or without the extra capitalization. Definitely should have a plural title. --StuffOfInterest 00:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. It is interesting that people keep voting delete on an issue that is listed as a renaming. Also, please note that there was a previous CfD on this category almost exactly one month ago. --StuffOfInterest 17:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete This category is about America is it not? But quite a few of the articles are about global topics, so allocating them to a special American category is American cultural imperialism. Not to say confusing. ReeseM 00:35, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Didn't you actually mean to say "Strong rename to Issues in the U.S. culture wars to avoid any international confusion"? Otherwise, it sounds like you are saying that a category should not exist if it is U.S. centric. --StuffOfInterest 00:56, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No I did not. It contains non-U.S.-specific articles which should not be in a U.S. category whatever it is called. It is also far too rhetorical for a category name and vague as well. ReeseM 10:30, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sounds like a CNN talk show. CalJW 18:42, 6 May 2006
• If kept due to no consensus, at least pluralize?  David Kernow 12:18, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but failing that amend capitals and plurals. Bhoeble 15:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Useful category. FeloniousMonk 04:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename with a strong keepJoshuaZ 07:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename - possibly to something that doesn't have "culture war" in the title. But there are undeniably some hot-button issues in U.S. politics and culture and we need a category as a convenient method of organization so one view of the category gives a good overview of the most contentious issues in the American public debate. --Cyde Weys 07:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename •Jim62sch• 07:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, without US - mainly, but not solely a US issue. Guettarda 11:49, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, without US, and attempt to expand to be less US-centric, as should be done when bias is present. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To something like category:Controversial issues presumably? Isn't that a pretty obviously bad idea? Osomec 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Just a rag bag. Osomec 00:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a category trying to perform the work of an article, because the connection between the entries is not simple, objective, and obvious. The category's current mealy-mouthed, qualifier-laden description of intended entries ("articles that can be considered political issues in the United States of America's so-called "Culture Wars") says it all. Postdlf 20:32, 15 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 renáme. Syrthiss 21:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Haiti is common spelling in English literature and use. Same situation as with "Perú"-"Peru". Darwinek 21:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Choalbaton 23:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Diacretics in titles should be banned in the English Wikipedia. CalJW 18:42, 6 May 2006
• Merge per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:15, 7 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 keep current hyphenation (and boy now I gotta go remove a bunch of cfr tags). Syrthiss 21:34, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following categories need to be renamed for proper grammar:

• Category:19th century baseball players → Category:19th-century baseball players
• Category:19th century theatre → Category:19th-century theatre
• Category:20th century theatre → Category:20th-century theatre
• Category:20th century classical music to Category:20th-century classical music
• Category:4th century books → Category:4th-century books
• Category:5th century books → Category:5th-century books
• Category:6th century books → Category:6th-century books
• Category:7th century books → Category:7th-century books
• Category:8th century books → Category:8th-century books
• Category:9th century books → Category:9th-century books
• Category:10th century books → Category:10th-century books
• Category:11th century books → Category:11th-century books
• Category:12th century books → Category:12th-century books
• Category:13th century books → Category:13th-century books
• Category:14th century books → Category:14th-century books
• Category:15th century books → Category:15th-century books
• Category:16th century books → Category:16th-century books
• Category:17th century books → Category:17th-century books
• Category:18th century books → Category:18th-century books
• Category:19th century books → Category:19th-century books
• Category:20th century books → Category:20th-century books
• Category:21st century books → Category:21st-century books
• Category:5th century mathematicians → Category:5th-century mathematicians
• Category:6th century mathematicians → Category:6th-century mathematicians
• Category:7th century mathematicians → Category:7th-century mathematicians
• Category:8th century mathematicians → Category:8th-century mathematicians
• Category:9th century mathematicians → Category:9th-century mathematicians
• Category:10th century mathematicians → Category:10th-century mathematicians
• Category:11th century mathematicians → Category:11th-century mathematicians
• Category:12th century mathematicians → Category:12th-century mathematicians
• Category:13th century mathematicians → Category:13th-century mathematicians
• Category:14th century mathematicians → Category:14th-century mathematicians
• Category:15th century mathematicians → Category:15th-century mathematicians
• Category:16th century mathematicians → Category:16th-century mathematicians
• Category:17th century mathematicians → Category:17th-century mathematicians
• Category:18th century mathematicians → Category:18th-century mathematicians
• Category:19th century mathematicians → Category:19th-century mathematicians
• Category:20th century mathematicians → Category:20th-century mathematicians
• Category:21st century mathematicians → Category:21st-century mathematicians
• Category:1st century births → Category:1st-century births
• Category:2nd century births → Category:2nd-century births
• Category:3rd century births → Category:3rd-century births
• Category:4th century births → Category:4th-century births
• Category:5th century births → Category:5th-century births
• Category:6th century births → Category:6th-century births
• Category:7th century births → Category:7th-century births
• Category:8th century births → Category:8th-century births
• Category:9th century births → Category:9th-century births
• Category:10th century births → Category:10th-century births
• Category:11th century births → Category:11th-century births
• Category:12th century births → Category:12th-century births
• Category:13th century births → Category:13th-century births
• Category:14th century births → Category:14th-century births
• Category:15th century births → Category:15th-century births
• Category:16th century births → Category:16th-century births
• Category:17th century births → Category:17th-century births
• Category:18th century births → Category:18th-century births
• Category:19th century births → Category:19th-century births
• Category:20th century births → Category:20th-century births
• Category:21st century births → Category:21st-century births
• Category:1st century deaths → Category:1st-century deaths
• Category:2nd century deaths → Category:2nd-century deaths
• Category:3rd century deaths → Category:3rd-century deaths
• Category:4th century deaths → Category:4th-century deaths
• Category:5th century deaths → Category:5th-century deaths
• Category:6th century deaths → Category:6th-century deaths
• Category:7th century deaths → Category:7th-century deaths
• Category:8th century deaths → Category:8th-century deaths
• Category:9th century deaths → Category:9th-century deaths
• Category:10th century deaths → Category:10th-century deaths
• Category:11th century deaths → Category:11th-century deaths
• Category:12th century deaths → Category:12th-century deaths
• Category:13th century deaths → Category:13th-century deaths
• Category:14th century deaths → Category:14th-century deaths
• Category:15th century deaths → Category:15th-century deaths
• Category:16th century deaths → Category:16th-century deaths
• Category:17th century deaths → Category:17th-century deaths
• Category:18th century deaths → Category:18th-century deaths
• Category:19th century deaths → Category:19th-century deaths
• Category:20th century deaths → Category:20th-century deaths
• Category:21st century deaths → Category:21st-century deaths
• Category:1st millennium BC births → Category:1st-millennium-BC births
• Category:2nd millennium BC births → Category:2nd-millennium-BC births
• Category:3rd millennium BC births → Category:3rd-millennium-BC births
• Category:1st millennium BC deaths → Category:1st-millennium-BC deaths
• Category:2nd millennium BC deaths → Category:2nd-millennium-BC deaths
• Category:3rd millennium BC deaths → Category:3rd-millennium-BC deaths

To use proper grammar. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 20:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note: I put all of these in one nomination so we wouldn't have to vote a half dozen times. No content was lost. If I've incorrectly attributed anything, my apologies.--Mike Selinker 13:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    The only problem is, you didn't fix all the "this category's entry" links in the categories when you change the heading. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 07:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename - This is obvious according to the rules of English grammar. The new name uses proper English grammar; the old one is simply incorrect. It's really not that much work for a bot. Vote on whether the new category names are objectively better, not how much work you think it would take. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose How would this affect searchability in a positive way? Only those familiar enough with the use of hyphens would find the articles easily. User:Dimadick
• Oppose While I respect Fowler (this side idolatry), I see no reason to bother with all of these. This is, or is analogous to, an Anglo-American spat. Leave well enough alone. Septentrionalis 20:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is this an Anglo-American spat? Do the British not hyphenate adjectives or something? --Cyde Weys 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No we hyphenate noun phrases when used as adjectives. Your compatriate below states that it's Americans who don't hyphenate! (Also not necessarily true). Amazing how often when there is a debate about correct spelling, grammar or punctuation, someone assumes that the way they do it is the way all their countrymen do it and any suggestion it should be done differently is a pernicious plot to Briticise or Americanise WP! I note that the original proponent of the change is an American (FWIW). Valiantis 13:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I don't believe it's a good change. The unhyphenated adjective "20th century" is very common, and in my opinion the way people will look for it. So it's a well-intentioned nomination, but not one I support.--Mike Selinker 13:34, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think people are going to be "looking" for these categories. Generally you end up in a category because you clicked through it from an article. And frankly, when I'm looking for stuff I do tend to look for it using the correct spelling/grammar/punctuation (grammar being the relevant one here). --Cyde Weys 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Let's keep it simple. -- User:Docu
  • Huh? Both are the same number of characters long. One is grammatically correct and the other isn't. Simple would be to use the one that's correct. --Cyde Weys 02:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support; Support, but only on the condition that cat redirects are also created; otherwise oppose. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- British style guides spell out centuries and use hyphenation. Americans believe grammar is descriptive, not prescriptive, and usually do not hyphenate this. See "20th Century Fox", "19th Century Schoolbooks", "19th Century Scientific American", .... Cyde Weys is just sideways (not side-ways). --William Allen Simpson 03:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just noticed that on the May 1 nominations, there are two categories about "19th century philosophers" and "19th century philosophy" and the like. It doesn't look like the above nominations will pass, so I figured I'd better make my opinion known down there as well. Others may want to as well (pro or con), since it's the same issue.--Mike Selinker 20:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose They look fine as they are. ReeseM 00:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Not really a matter of what Britons and Americans "believe"! Pretty well all modern academic grammarians believe grammar should be descriptive not prescriptive. The question is what avoids ambiguity. Style guides from both sides of the Atlantic recommend the use of the hyphen to avoid any ambiguity. The issue re: the spelling of "sideways" (which is generally spelt sideways in BE & AE) is an irrelevancy as the question is whether noun phrases used as modifiers of a further noun should be hyphenated, not whether compound nouns should be hyphenated or spelt as one word! Valiantis 13:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Just as an aside: I guess grammar begins as prescription (schooling) in people's lives and thereafter becomes ever more descriptive. Here's to a few remedial visits, however, to restore any functionality lost in the process (e.g. collapsing "its" and "it's"). (Re hyphenating noun-phrases used as adjectives, I think I'd tend to agree, not due to prescription but because I find it (usually) aids my reading. I suppose that's because it transforms something the context treats as a single concept – but is otherwise indicated using more than a single word, e.g. "noun phrase" – into something looking more like a single word ("noun-phrase"). Actual conflation ("nounphrase") can be the corollary.  Regards, David Kernow 15:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Generally I'm all for proper hyphenation, but 1) you could argue that the form "xxth century noun" is so common that it is an important exception; 2) due to common usage there is no chance of attributing the adjective incorrectly, as with "slow roasted chicken"; 3) it could make the categories harder to find for the average categorizer. Outriggr 00:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose It may be 'gramatically correct' (whatever that means these days), but non-hyphenated is surely the commonest form of all the above, as well as being intuitive. In other words, all the non-hyphenated versions will just get recreated as duplicates anyway. ::Supergolden:: 09:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. common usage. `'mikka (t) 18:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. MakeRocketGoNow 20:01, 11 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. Syrthiss 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In line with similar changes (Category:Firefox users to Category:Wikipedians who use Mozilla Firefox etc.) GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 18:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib}
• Delete - Unencyclopedic, unnecessary category. "Wikipedians who like cats" isn't even vaguely encyclopedia-related like, say, "Wikipedians who are interested in Ancient Rome". --Cyde Weys 04:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:58, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, rename per nom. David Kernow 18:27, 7 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created it with incorrect capitalisation, unused. Mtiedemann 17:36, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• speedy delete requested by creator -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:02, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. David Kernow 16:04, 6 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. Syrthiss 21:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match category:American literature, its own three subcategories and the similar categories for other countries. Bhoeble 16:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename. -- Darwinek 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Remame per nom. ReeseM 03:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match Category:Poetry by nation or language. mattbr³⁰ 18:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 18:28, 7 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 merge Tim! 09:42, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Philippine writers or Category:Filipino writers as appropriate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Filipino writers (see next discussion down). Choalbaton 23:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Filipino writers per Choalbaton. Her Pegship 03:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:09, 7 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 Tim! 09:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Filipino writers, to match other Category:Filipino people by occupation (speedy?) -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:24, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Choalbaton 23:23, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 18:02, 7 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 merge Tim! 09:37, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the seem to be duplicates of each other (both with no articles). Category:ISBN needed seems to be older category. SeventyThree^(Talk) 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. I've used Category:ISBN needed, and seen it used; I hadn't heard of Category:Pages needing ISBN citations. —Serein 21:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per above. David Kernow 00:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Her Pegship 03:43, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. mattbr³⁰ 17:51, 7 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 already renamed by Cyde apparently. Syrthiss 22:02, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shorter name (shock horror). David Kernow 14:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to either Category:People pardoned by the President of the United States or Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons. David Kernow 14:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC), amended 16:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - per nom. Afonso Silva 15:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It could even be shorter: category:Recipients of American presidential pardons.--Mike Selinker 15:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to either Category:People pardoned by the President of the United States or Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons. No particular preference between these two. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest that "Recipients of ... pardons" unfortunately recalls "Recipients of..." honors categories... Regards, David Kernow 00:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand this comment. Could you please explain it in a bit more detail?--Mike Selinker 13:38, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry Mike; looks like I was suffering from over-compressive tendencies when writing the above. I was meaning to point out that "Recipients of American presidential pardons" recalls categories such as "Recipients of US Distinguished Flying Cross", "Recipients of the Cross of Valor", "Recipients of the Sakharov Prize" etc, i.e. categories that involve honor rather than pardon. Regards, David Kernow 16:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I see. Well, in some sense it is an honor; you're being given a free pass by the most powerful person in America. I guess the issue is whether a recipient of this deserves such an honor, but that's an issue with every award as well.--Mike Selinker 17:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the shorter option, Category:Recipients of American presidential pardons. I don't relate to David K's point above; receive and recipient are standard language when talking about pardons. ×Meegs 16:21, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood; I've amended my vote above. Regards, David Kernow 16:25, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 17:49, 7 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 13:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Overcategorisation. ReeseM 00:52, 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 13:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete. We already have category:National Hockey League coaches by team.--Mike Selinker 15:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Mike. Anthony Hit me up... 11:14, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – perpetually dated membership criteria. ×Meegs 16:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Mike Selinker. Also see List of NHL head coaches. mattbr³⁰ 17:45, 7 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 13:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy delete for caps. See Category:Dalhousie University campus. mattbr³⁰ 17:42, 7 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An empty category containing a list of creeks, which can also be found in Ocmulgee River Conscious 13:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as it currently stands. The list of creeks are for one area of the US. Creeks are not generally an encyclopeadic topic. If that were to be the case I could flood Wikipedia with the thousands of creeks here in New Zealand. [1] Alan Liefting 19:19, 11 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 Renamed by premature Cydebot (talk · contribs) --William Allen Simpson 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with similar categories under Category:Legislative Branch of the United States Government. —Markles 13:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. --William Allen Simpson 03:12, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 17:37, 7 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 Renamed by premature Cydebot (talk · contribs) --William Allen Simpson 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Sessions" has a specific defined meaning in Congress, namely a specific period during a Congress. The best word, although there is no perfect word, would be "Terms." Perhaps the technically most precise phrase would be "Category:United States Congresses" but that would probably much too confusing here.—Markles 13:09, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:United States Congresses -- the main article is List of United States Congresses -- there are (usually) two sessions per Congress, see United States House of Representatives, 109th Congress, 2nd Session. Terms are served by members of Congress (just as terms are served by inmates), but the terms are 2 years for representatives and 6 years for senators, while the combination of representatives and senators comprise Congress. --William Allen Simpson 03:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's fine with me, to rename to Category:United States Congresses.—Markles 14:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I struck the original proposal so that future discussion will focus on the technically correct name. My former member (now professor) agrees. Googling site:loc.gov yields only 4 "Congresses of the United States" and about 136 "United States Congresses" --William Allen Simpson 03:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States Congresses and those who were unaware that was the correct term will learn something extra. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:51, 9 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 Renamed by premature Cydebot (talk · contribs) --William Allen Simpson 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistent with similar categories under Category:Legislative Branch of the United States Government. —Markles 13:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed --William Allen Simpson 03:11, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. mattbr³⁰ 17:38, 7 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 relist for more opinions Tim! 09:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant - contains one article and one subcategory. Shiroi Hane 12:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mefge Category:Tokyo Mew Mew characters into this category instead; TMM should link to the cat :-> where its characters are. Septentrionalis 23:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This way round allows the characters to be grouped together in a fictional characters category and Category:Tokyo Mew Mew is a necessary parent for it. It would be odd to have the Category:Tokyo Mew Mew characters feeding only into a fictional characters category. There really should be a bridging category in the category tree between the Tokyo Mew Mew article and the category for individual characters. Putting in a "See also this category" link into articles is messy and should generally be avoided. TheGrappler 19:33, 6 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:09, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 10:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy delete for caps. See Category:Cognitive intelligence. mattbr³⁰ 17:33, 7 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 Delete (empty), was replaced by Category:Siege engines --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• KEEP and repopulate and rename Category:Catapaults 132.205.45.110 20:40, 5 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 Keep --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 09:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep - I'll include articles in it. It's a notable category. Afonso Silva 15:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has been populated now. Chicheley 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge with Category:Catalan-language poets. This new category name is better because it is shorter. Andrew Dalby 18:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge as per Andrew Dalby.--Aldux 19:34, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not merge. Category:Catalan poets != Category:Catalan-language poets. - EurekaLott 20:03, 11 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 Keep --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 09:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep - I'll include the proper articles in it. It's a notable category. Afonso Silva 15:13, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It has been populated now. Chicheley 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge with Category:Catalan-language writers. This new category name is better than the old one because it is shorter. Andrew Dalby 18:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; Do not merge. The first is a subcat of Category:Catalan people by occupation, and the second of Category:Writers by language; both are valid and useful, however there is significant overlap.

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, article created at R. Thomas Riley with edit history pasted to talk page. Tim! 09:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created in the wrong namespace, duplicate of Thomas Riley should be moved to R. Thomas Riley. Conscious 10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Move per nom. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move per nom. mattbr³⁰ 17:27, 7 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one is intended to work as a disambuguation category. Do we have such things at all? Conscious 10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep I don't see why not. Bhoeble 16:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Its existence will attract articles from editors (like me) who often guess the names of categories when adding them to articles. Its lack of parents will limit the chance that such articles will be discovered and moved to the correct category. At the very least, the (India) and (Pakistan) should be members. ×Meegs 16:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 17:26, 7 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:Education magazines. Conscious 10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. mattbr³⁰ 17:24, 7 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant to Category:Classroom magazines. Conscious 10:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy delete for caps. mattbr³⁰ 17:22, 7 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 Merge Tim! 08:59, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sparsely populated duplicate of properly named Category:Pitcairn Islands. Grutness...wha? 08:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Pitcairn Islands. David Kernow 12:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. CalJW 18:44, 6 May 2006
• Merge per nom. mattbr³⁰ 17:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.--Aldux 19:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Alan Liefting 19:20, 11 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 08:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete See category:Casinos in Romania. Bhoeble 16:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete. 17:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian (talk • contribs)
• Delete as per Bhoeble. mattbr³⁰ 17:20, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete I forgot to get it deleted after I mispelled it the first time. It should be gotten rid of. 2005 20:33, 9 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only contains empty Category:Cat Lovers Commitee Members (see below). Conscious 08:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as below. mattbr³⁰ 17:13, 7 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 08:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats are listed at Category:WikiProject Cats Members, and committee members can be listed on this page. mattbr³⁰ 17:12, 7 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 Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 08:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as appears to relate to a non-existant (with nothing in the deletion log) article. mattbr³⁰

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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unused. Conscious 08:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete as appears to have been replaced by Category:Dams and canals in Rajasthan. mattbr³⁰ 17:19, 7 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 relist as not tagged for deletion Tim! 08:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant; that's what the main Neuroscience category is for; and is sparsely populated - move its one subcategory to Neuroscience or Neurophysiology. Outriggr 01:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Sumahoy 01:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. Alan Liefting 19:20, 11 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 preclosed by Cyde, renamed something ?. Syrthiss 22:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less emotive name. David Kernow 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom, but also see below. David Kernow 01:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC), amended 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC) and 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom for now, but perhaps there is a better name. Sumahoy 01:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Afonso Silva 15:08, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I might prefer "Victims of Nazi courts" (says who does it, rather than under what banner), but anything's better than the current name.--Mike Selinker 15:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I tried to think of a better term than "victim", and I'm sure there is one. But for now, rename to Category:Victims of Nazi courts per Mike Selinker as the term "Nazi court" is used in the category description. —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 17:21, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest there were people who were victims of Nazi laws without any courts' involvement; I'll rephrase the description if desired. Regards, David Kernow 00:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think in this case, the category is meant to just contain those who were sentenced. So as I think about it, "courts" makes more sense to me than "laws."--Mike Selinker 13:41, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • In which case, I'd say rename to Category:People sentenced by Nazi courts, but (a) I imagine that would exclude some current members of the category; and (b) perhaps that's too specific...?  Regards, David 16:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think these are all carried-out death sentences, but I haven't gone through all of them to be sure.--Mike Selinker 17:27, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, I will do so anon and report back. Regards, David 18:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I've now examined a batch of the articles on people categorized as Victims of Nazi justice more closely and – with a few exceptions – their articles each mention some kind of trial followed by execution, so I'm inclined to suggest:
• Rename to Category:People condemned by Nazi courts to allow for any articles on people who escaped execution....
• * See #Recategorisation? below.

...I'd then work through the category to (try to) correct or filter out the few exceptions. Thoughts, please!  Thanks, David Kernow 01:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC), amended 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Works for me.--Mike Selinker 03:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People condemned by Nazi courts as less inherently contradictory than original cat (Victims of justice?) and more accurate than second suggestion, (Victims of law) KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People condemned by Nazi courts work for me too. Much better than "victim". —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 14:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• See previous CfD on this Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_16#Category:Victims_of_Nazi_justice. I would delete it as it may get too large, has low information value and even the name is not agreed. Pavel Vozenilek 21:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, a consensus for Category:People condemned by Nazi courts seems to be growing... If that does bceome the category's name, then I suppose its size depends on how many notables condemned by Nazi courts could be added to Wikipedia; a finite and not too great a number?  Regards, David Kernow 23:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at the various groups of people killed by the Nazi régime that appear in...

• Category:Victims of Nazi justice
• Widerstand
• List of Holocaust victims
• Category:Holocaust victims
• Category:Nazi concentration camp victims

...and a categorisation along the lines of the below seems to emerge.

• Category:People killed by the Third Reich
  (replacing the current Category:Victims of Nazi justice, but all articles should be placed within following subcategories:)

• Category:Holocaust victims
  (also Category:Holocaust victims by country and/or Category:Holocaust victims by occupation...?)

• to include Category:Nazi concentration camp victims

• Category:Resistance fighters killed by the Third Reich
  (to contain the resistance fighters and plotters killed/executed by Nazis)

• and perhaps the subCategory:People executed by the Third Reich under the existing Category:Executed people...?

Thoughts, please?  Thanks, David Kernow 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC), amended 04:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• With the exception that I can't abide the accent on regime, I like this a lot.--Mike Selinker 07:21, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it's a French "loanword", so fear not. (Is diacritical intolerance something particularly (North) American?  Anyhow, "regime" fine by me.)  Cydebot seems to have moved Category:Victims of Nazi justice to Category:People condemned by Nazi courts already, but I guess I'd better let an admin close this proposal before making a new one and/or setting to work on new subcategories. Regards, David 16:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed "Nazi régime" in favor of "Third Reich". David Kernow 04:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I much prefer "Third Reich" to "Nazi regime."--Mike Selinker 22:40, 13 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 Tim! 08:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should probably be changed to "doctor" in line with the categories for India, the UK and other Commonwealth countries. Bhoeble 01:11, 5 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Support Mayumashu 12:28, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. CalJW 18:43, 6 May 2006
• Rename per nom. ReeseM 00:52, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Alan Liefting 10:37, 12 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.