The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, empty. Kbdank71 16:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bihar politics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Moved to new cat Politics of Bihar for consistency. AndrewRT(Talk) 23:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 16:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horrible Science Books ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Horrible Histories, which seems to be the overall name the the series, or at least rename to Category:Horrible Science books. -- Prove It ^(talk) 18:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. They are really a different series, but there is only 1 & I can't really see many more articles being justified. Johnbod (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete not every series needs a cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Merge They are a totally different series! History and Science have nothing in common. Why not create a category for Horrible Science, Horrible Geography and Horrible Science. And by the way, i'm planning to write some more articles to this category. SimpsonsFan2008 (talk) 21:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete without prejudice to re-creating when there are more articles. Single article does not need a category yet, but a separate category within category:Science books would be right if there were more articles. - Fayenatic (talk) 21:36, 26 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was no consensus. Kbdank71 16:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Loyalist military units in the American Revolution to Category:Provincial units and formations of Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Follow AWR naming conventions. BradMajors (talk) 16:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The proposed category name is an appalling mouthful. Rename to Category:Loyalist military units in the American Revolutionary War if you like. While I am no expert, I understood that the loyalists were Americans fighting for theri vision of what America should be. They were loyal to Great Britain, but not exactly "of Great Britain". Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal is following the naming convention at: WP:MILMOS#CATNAME. The root category name is Category:Military units and formations of Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War. Great Britain called these "provincial" units and not "loyalist" units. Not all of the persons in these units were loyalists. (e.g. Indians) BradMajors (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - what naming convention did the creator (one BradMajors) of Category:Military units and formations of Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War follow when producing this dreadful mouthful? Surely there is some neater way of expressing both categories. In any case there is another parent category, namely Category:Loyalists in the American Revolution. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; this is the name specified by the long-standing overall category naming convention for military unit and formation categories. Kirill 10:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other possible alternatives, incidentally, would be "Provincial units and formations of the American Revolutionary War" (I don't believe the inchoate US had any regular/provincial distinction, so British units can be assumed) or "Colonial units and formations of Great Britain in the American Revolutionary War"; but, in any case, the category name must be "units and formations" rather than simply "units", as some of these aren't properly the latter. Kirill 10:39, 21 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename to "published in foo". There was no consensus as to whether or not to add the state, so if that is desired, please relist. Kbdank71 16:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers published in Pittsburgh to Category:to be determined by consensus

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers of Chicago to Category:to be determined by consensus

Propose renaming Category:Newspapers in Baltimore to Category:to be determined by consensus

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These three categories represent the forms of naming the subcats of Category:Newspapers by city have taken. We should pick one and implement it across the board. I have no opinion as to which. Otto4711 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Something else to determine is whether categories should include just the city name. Otto4711 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I like "published in" best. The New York Times, for instance, is published in NYC, but distributed around the world. Calling it a newspaper "of" NYC or "in" NYC, seems slightly wrong. LeSnail (talk) 00:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the form used in Category:Newspapers published in Pittsburgh but add the state making them follow the form of Category:Newspapers published in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:23, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: In the USA, at least, vanishingly few cities have more than one daily paper marketed to a general audience -- last I knew, that list was limited to New York City, Washington DC, Los Angeles, and Chicago. (My memory may be playing tricks, but unless I'm missing scores of cities with multiple daily papers my error can't possibly be enough to make a meaningful difference.) The brutal economics of newspaper publication tend to ruthlessly eliminate all but the highest-circulation paper in any city, as Ben Bagdikian noted nearly 25 years ago in The Media Monopoly. So -- if "daily publication" is the definition of "newspaper", then with respect to the USA any category of this nature will almost always have exactly one member with near-zero probability of growth. If weeklies are considered, the field widens considerably and these categories might actually become useful. If specialised newspapers marketed to specific topics or populations (e.g. Jewish Ledger or Novoye russkoye slovo) are considered, likewise. But all this raises another point: what's the definition of "newspaper"? Without a clear working definition of "newspaper", these categories cannot have coherent inclusion criteria. --7Kim (talk) 14:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Further Comment: An issue I had not considered before. Many areas have several cities with several daily papers, that have overlapping distributions. Example: In Hartford, CT, one has the option of purchasing the Hartford Courant, the Manchester Journal-Inquirer, or the New Britain Register, each of which is published in its own city. Perhaps categorising U.S. newspapers by city is not as useful as categorising them by state, region, or metropolitan area. For a similar reason, the physical location of the printing press or editorial offices may not be useful as a defining characteristic.
• These comments may not be useful in deciding whether to rename the above categories, but I think it should be food for thought in handling the categorisation structure under Category:Newspapers. --7Kim (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• The nominator seems to have missed one option: Category:New York City newspapers. I think I like this one best. --Eliyak T·C 02:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Request relisting - Seeing as this discussion is nowhere near any sort of concensus, I would like to see it relisted rather than just closing as "no concensus". Also, I've just posted a note to bring this CFD to the attention of other editors who are part of WikiProject Journalism. Cgingold (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, cjllw ʘ TALK 13:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - One, glad it was relisted. Two, the thoughts on issues of city & region -- it's really overlapping spheres of identification. Still thinking... --Lquilter (talk) 16:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Newspapers based in Foo. We can do it by state or city depending. There are many cities with only one daily, but newspapers may be weeklies as well. Most large cities have several weeklies (sometimes termed the alternative press); also most colleges have dailies or weeklies too, but "based in" is better than "in" or "of" or even "published in" because you can get the NYT or WSJ nearly anywhere in the US so much for "in" or "of", and many of these are "published in" either in some no-name suburb or in a distributed way - the NYT in California has different sections no doubt locally prepared - but "based in" is pretty straightforward and we use it for most other businesses. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Newspapers based in Foo (preferred) or Category:Newspapers published in Foo (second choice), per CS46' reasoning. --Lquilter (talk) 01:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the form used in Category:Newspapers published in Pittsburgh but do not add the state. Newspapers may not have a finite distribution area, and they may not be "based" in the city where they're published. However, physical locations are required for publishing newspapers, and even special-interest and Internet-based newspapers (usually) list a publishing city. So all newspapers are published somewhere - I move that we simply acknowledge where that place is. • Freechild'sup? 12:29, 28 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete, empty. Kbdank71 16:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portuguese footballers abroad ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: DeleteSame function as Category:Portuguese expatriate footballers. Matthew_hk tc 11:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as duplicate category (or delete if still empty at end of discussion). Bencherlite^Talk 17:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom as dup. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, duplicate. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:40, 22 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 28. Kbdank71 16:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Space Exploration to Category:WikiProject Spaceflight

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm not actually sure whether this one should even exist, but the project which it relates has been renamed, and the category should be renamed to match this. GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 10:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ammendment - now proposing that Category:WikiProject Space exploration be merged into the resultant category, Category:WikiProject Spaceflight, as well. --GW_Simulations_{User Page | Talk} 19:16, 20 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UPTU to Category:Uttar Pradesh Technical University

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation per WP:NCCAT and main article Uttar Pradesh Technical University. Snocrates 10:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 17:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per precedent to expand acronyms. Maralia (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was merge. Kbdank71 16:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Organizations by association to Category:Organizations

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge this single entry confusing category or merge into another category. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I made the cat. The idea, not fully worked out yet, was to deal with organizations that are associated with other organizations. There are lots of UN-related organizations that are not part of the UN; the Mormon category came up too; and it seemed, in working with org categories, that I periodically ran across these for larger organizations. But I agree it's not well-named, and there may just be a better way to handle this altogether. --Lquilter (talk) 16:09, 20 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was delete. Kbdank71 16:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:UN messengers of peace to Category:United Nations Messengers of Peace

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proper full name per United Nations Messengers of Peace. Snocrates 06:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overcategorization by award - a list already exists at the main article. Bencherlite^Talk 13:09, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT per Bencherlite. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was relisted on jan 28. Kbdank71 16:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2007 elections in England to Category:English local elections, 2007

Nominator's rationale: This category is only used for local elections and the rename would allow this cat to fit into the Category:United Kingdom local elections, 2007 structure and be in line with Scottish local elections, 2007. The proposal also extends to the other pages in Category:Elections in England by year. BlueValour (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename to Category:Bed and breakfasts. Kbdank71 16:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bed and Breakfast to Category:Bed and breakfast inns

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Needs to be pluralized, and "Bed and breakfasts" (or "beds and breakfasts"?) is a bit awkward, so I suggest adding "inns" for this reason and for clarity purposes. Snocrates 01:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Both of these are in the US, but inns would be very wrong for UK examples, and I expect for these too. Rename to "Bed and breakfasts". Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Bed and breakfasts". Eg Big Bay Point Light is a US non-Inn B&B. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or rename to plural. The addition of "inn" in the British context would suggest licensed premises (i.e. licensed to sell alcohol). Some pubs do offer B&B, but many are essentially private houses that take paying guests. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective as to what is a bed and breakfast, many that claim that title have little to do with one another; in the US, we envision a former private residence where tourists are lodged and we go downstairs for a hearty English breakfast of bangers, eggs, bacon, beans, and toast with a cuppa - sometimes that's included in the price, but as often as not these days either not or there are inclusive and exclusive pricings - but honestly, nearly any other hotel also provides breakfast, perhaps included in the price or not - and whether all this is served by a middle-aged woman with her hair in a bun calling everyone "luv" is what we expect but won't get at any of these establishments I'm afraid. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Bed and breakfasts to match the name of the main article, Bed and breakfast. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was rename. Kbdank71 16:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Balticum to Category:Baltic region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use English; main article is at Baltic region. Snocrates 01:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Baltic Sea and its subcats. This is a history category, but the other sub-cats are sufficient. Johnbod (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. There is also a main article Balticum, but it is a short one, merely sufficient to explain the term. "Baltic Sea" is not really suitable, since this is about the nations etc around the Baltic, not about the sea, though it is a subcategory of "Baltic Sea". Peterkingiron (talk) 00:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nominator). There is no main article called Balticum. It redirects to Baltic region. Snocrates 07:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename although Balticum is the name by which the region is most often refered by those in the region, in English, we use Baltic region. See, e.g., Norden vs. Nordic countries. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:45, 22 January 2008 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.