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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't actually expecting this to be one of Mais Oui's as it sounds like it was created by a non native speaker of English. Having both of these is confusing. Merge into the less awkward name. England is a country so it has never emigrated, only people (and animals) do that. Merchbow 22:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep The main cat is called Category:Human migration, and the Wiki std naming convention is "of foo". Human migration encompasses both emigration and immigration: it is not a duplicate of the emigration cat, it is a parent.--Mais oui! 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The naming convention depends on the topic area and this and the ones for England and Wales created by the same user are the only subcategories of Category:Human migration in this illiterate form. ReeseM 00:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as per nom. Maybe try again with a different name, but this is too ugly. Carina22 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Will this be over soon? CalJW 15:42, 24 February 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Created by the usual person and populated with a token one item Merge the well established Category:National parks of England and Wales because that is the way things are organised, it matches the article National Parks of England and Wales and it is just obviously the right way to do things unless you are trying to divide everything in the UK up to make a political point. Merchbow 22:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep --Mais oui! 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge More from the Category:Companies of England man. Carina22 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Presuming, of course, that there is a good reason it should not all be part of "Category:National Parks of the United Kingdom". Note: See capitalization discussion at: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_16#U.S._protected_areas. — Eoghanacht ^talk 12:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Will this be over soon? CalJW 15:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge See the official website where the heading "The National Parks of England and Wales" is featured in big green envoronmentally friendly letters. Honbicot 15:53, 25 February 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 --Kbdank71 17:28, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More pain in the butt unnecessary England categorisation from the same source. Contains one obscure item. The money enthusiasts (what's the word?) are happy with a UK category, so let's leave them to it, rather than disrupting things for the sake of it. Delete Merchbow 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Numismatists --Stemonitis 13:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep --Mais oui! 22:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Carina22 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Stemonitis 13:07, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete One article this time! CalJW 15:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete England's only had one currency so far as I know and it shares that with the rest of the UK. Honbicot 15:54, 25 February 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 --Kbdank71 17:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This contains only the two subcategories nominated below. No one has added anything to it in nearly a month, confirming that it is a pointless intervention in the established Category:United Kingdom environment. It is Britain that is a state, and also much more of a separate entity in physical geography. Having two tiers of category will only cause confusion. Delete Merchbow 22:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep --Mais oui! 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Postdlf 00:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Carina22 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As usual. CalJW 15:42, 24 February 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 --Kbdank71 17:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another category which is more trouble than it is worth created by the usual person and ignored for a month by everyone else. It is hard enough to divide plants and animals etc on national lines at all as they ignore them, so it doesn't help to have two tiers where there only needs to be one. Delete. Merchbow 22:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep --Mais oui! 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is currently populated only by Category:English ornithologists, itself a likely overcategorization, and New Forest, nested within the otherwise empty Category:Forests and woodlands of England, nested within the otherwise empty Category:Flora of England. This all seems like a rather desperate attempt to justify a category, and it doesn't appear to be a very sound basis for treatment as a discrete topic. Postdlf 00:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Isn't "natural history" an obselete term? Carina22 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as usual. I said before that England categories created by Mais Oui should be speediable. He responded that that was as silly as saying that all categories created by me should be speediable. Well I've created over a thousand categories and not one has been deleted so far as I can recall. With Mais Oui's England categories it's rather different. CalJW 15:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Postdlf Honbicot 15:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Natural history is not at all an obsolete term, and a category on British Natural History (or perhaps Natural History of Britain) would be well worthwhile. There is a great wealth of material on the natural history of Britain, reflected in literally thousands of publications, and well-epitomized by The New Naturalist series published by Collins, which has 99 volumes (each on a topic such as moths, climate, fossils, sea shores, etc.). Such a catgeory would be especially appropriate for Britain, given the long history of interest and writing on its natural history, which gives it a temporal perspective lacking for other places. Limitation to England, as noted by Merchbow, is unnatural, and thus the current category seems non-optimal, as well as poorly utilized. MayerG 16:37, 3 March 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 --Kbdank71 17:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contained only a subcategory for forests and woodlands, which is hardly appropropriate and has better homes, so I have moved it out. Even the UK category is of dubious merit, and seems to have dubiously appropriate content, making it mostly an inferior semi-duplicate of the conservation category. Now empty Delete Merchbow 22:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep --Mais oui! 22:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If only the category creator had taken the time to create a list of plants found in England or some such informative and interesting thing, instead of attempting a poorly conceived classification. Postdlf 00:39, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we should categorize every animal and plant species by every country...nay, every subdivision within a country where they are or have ever been found. I think the categories would frequently outflood the article text. And wouldn't that be grand and useless... Postdlf 00:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom and Postdlf Carina22 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as usual. CalJW 15:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Expand - This is the correct category name see Category:Flora by region there is plenty of room for this category to expand, other countries have their own +cat for this topic why not England ?? SirIsaacBrock 13:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This sort of category is only appropriate for places like Australia and Madagascar, if at all. Honbicot 15:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every plant shouldn't have "Category:Flora of (any land it exists in)", too swamped, if you want to know where to plant can be found, look for "geographical distribution", if you want to know what grows in England, list of plants found in England is better. Obli (Talk)^? 13:14, 26 February 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 --Kbdank71 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As per previous Films by Star categories. JW 21:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Carina22 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 17:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even though word nephology is defined in dictionaries as study of clouds it is used only sporadically in meteorological context these days. For example, almost all if not all books in the last 50 years use "cloud physics" in its title (I list some of them below). All university graduate classes use "Cloud Physics" name. I added "fog" to incude in the category a related phenomena.

Example books using cloud physics in their title

• Short Course in Cloud Physics, Third Edition (International Series in Natural Philosophy)

by M K Yau, R R ROGERS ,

• The physics of clouds, (Oxford monographs on meteorology) by B. J Mason , 1957
• Cloud Physics and Cloud Seeding (Science Study Series)

by Louis J. Battan (Hardcover - October 15, 1979)

• Elements of Cloud Physics by Horace R. Byers

(unsigned CfD added by User:Pflatau [1])

• Comment: if no one will vote here IMHO view of Pflatau should be taken as default result. He is quite active on meteorology topics [2] and likely knows what he is saying. Pavel Vozenilek 21:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but it really only needs to be category:Cloud physics. Since fog is a cloud formation (at least to all but the most exacting minutiaeologists), fog physics are covered by cloud physics.--Mike Selinker 23:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Pflatau seems to understand what he's up to. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:25, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom Carina22 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the old cat should be kept as a categoryredirect 132.205.45.110 21:54, 27 February 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging these categories under 'Klezmer musicians'. 'Klezmorim' means 'Klezmer musicians' in Yiddish - the categories are thus identical. There are 4 entries (so far) in 'Klezmer musicians' and only one in 'Klezmorim'. --Smerus 20:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per nom. Second name is clearer in English. Carina22 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Carina22. - choster 15:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:2004 in Hong Kong and Macao → Category:2004 in Hong Kong and Macau
• Category:2005 in Hong Kong and Macao → Category:2005 in Hong Kong and Macau
• Category:Banks of Macao → Category:Banks of Macau
• Category:Buildings and structures in Macao → Category:Buildings and structures in Macau
• Category:Forts in Macao → Category:Forts in Macau
• Category:Historic Centre of Macao → Category:Historic Centre of Macau
• Category:Political office-holders in Macao → Category:Political office-holders in Macau
• Category:Politicians from Macao → Category:Politicians from Macau
• Category:Roman Catholic Church in Macao → Category:Roman Catholic Church in Macau
• Category:Years in Hong Kong and Macao → Category:Years in Hong Kong and Macau
• Optional extra:
• Category:Wikipedians in Macao → Category:Wikipedians in Macau

For consistency with the parent category, Category:Macau, main article, Macau, and a number of other existing categories, as per the naming conventions, and similarly to these recent renamings. Last one we could easily go with personal preference on, as obviously this isn't intended to be a "main namespace category". Alai 19:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Move all. -Silence 20:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. Carina22 11:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as per the evidence presented by user:MayerG and by myself in the previous nomination. Don't think it has to be consistent on Wikipedia, since in real life usage it's really split. If it really has to be consistent, we should, as user:MayerG has suggested, go with -o (and as a matter of fact the article started first under the title Macao [3] [4]). An introduction of the university on the website of the University of Macau exhibits that the official English spelling of the territory is -o [5], although -u is part of the names of many organisations. — Instantnood 17:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not, however, wikipedia policy, which is indeed to have consistency, and to follow the name of the main article. If there's a case for renaming that article, please make it there, not piecemeal in opposing attempts to established the required consistency. Alai 05:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please also note those were not "previous nominations" of these categories, they're the (successful) nominations for the renaming of other categories, on the same grounds, as linked to in this nomination. Alai 05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to 'u' if there is desire for consistency, or just leave as is because, like Queen's spelling of humour vs American spelling of humor, 'o' vs 'u' doesn't matter. SchmuckyTheCat 18:43, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: That means you're fine with -o and -u coexist, am I right? — Instantnood 20:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with them co-existing. However, other people want to have consistency, I support their efforts. SchmuckyTheCat 20:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If consistency is really necessary, as user:MayerG and I have shown, the choice should be -o rather than -u. Nonetheless I don't think it's necessary. The picture on Wikipedia should reflect the real life situation - both spellings are used. — Instantnood 22:29, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. I don't have a dog in this fight, and I can't recall how I wandered into the previous nomination of similar categories. What does concern me is that these decisions be made on verifiable evidence, not offhand claims that one spelling is much more common than the other. Such claims may come from people with wide and accurate experience in the spelling of Macao/u in English, but if such is the case, then verifiable evidence should be easy to provide. In the previous nomination, Instantnood, Kusma and myself all checked some verifiable evidence, and came to mixed conclusions: Macao is much more common in Canadian websites and in some British usage, Macao predominates in the New York Times, and Macau predominates in the BBC. I've done a bit of further checking, confirming Kusma's findings for the BBC (both news and programming): they switched to Macau in about 1999. Also, the CIA World Factbook uses Macau. On the present evidence, the spelling of Macao/u in English (this is an important consideration-- the Portuguese spelling is Macau, and many website hits for "Macau" will be to non-English usages, hence mine and [I suspect] Kusma's limiting our checking to clearly English usages) is quite variable, but leans towards Macao. I would be quite happy to be shown that Macau predominates, but I want to be shown, not merely assured.MayerG 16:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category seems too specific in its current scope.— Eoghanacht ^talk 18:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. With the proposed change, where would the Military parks go in the Civil War catgory scheme? To articles in Category:American Civil War sites or another subcat? Vegaswikian 19:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note "National military parks" are battlefields. The overly complicated official nomenclature is something I though unneccessary to reproduce in Wikipedia categories. My basic point is: Are people really interested in knowing which Civil War battlefields are protected by the NPS, or would they prefer a more comprehensive collection of Civil War battlefields, be they protected by federal, state, or local governments? — Eoghanacht ^talk 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep, this category is specifically for those units administered by the National Park Service and should be a child of Category:National parks of the United States. It could also be made a child of a generic American Civil War battlefields category, of course, which could contain non-National battlefields and parks, but IMHO that purpose is served by Category:American Civil War sites. - choster 20:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn following further discussion. - choster 15:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since "national battlefields" are not "national parks", they should not be a child of that category. — Eoghanacht ^talk 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then it presumably can become an immediate subcategory of Category:United States National Park Service.-choster 06:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per choster. However, it might be a good idea to merge Category:American Civil War National Battlefields and Military Parks into Category:U.S. National Battlefields and Military Parks (currently up for renaming to Category:United States National Battlefields and Military Parks). - EurekaLott 20:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment These parks were recently split from that group (or, actually, double categorized). I think it is useful for them to be both in a general "National battlefield" category, and a specific "Civil War site (or whatever)" category. — Eoghanacht ^talk 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, now I see what you're trying to do. This new name doesn't give any indication that the category would only include protected areas. Would a battlefield that's now the site of a subdivision be eligible for this category? - EurekaLott 12:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Initially, I only had battlefields with some sort of protection in mind -- but perhaps ones with public access could be added (even if signicantly "built-up"). I live near an civil war battlefield that has since become urban/suburban, but there are multiple historical plaques explaining the campaign. I have actually never tried to follow the signs to understand the battle, but if someone reasonably could, perhaps such a location could be added to the category. — Eoghanacht ^talk 15:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• One more thought... Let's assume there is a good reason to have a separate category for National Park Service properties associated with the American Civil War (I actually don't think it is needed, but let's assume it is.) The current category does not do this. It would not include, for example, Fort Sumter National Monument, Andersonville National Historic Site, nor Gettysburg National Cemetery. So I am not sure what the category, in its current form, is really accomplishing. — Eoghanacht ^talk 23:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Accepted, but CFD ≠ cleanup.- choster 06:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as per reasoning of nominator, and the two opposes. Alai 02:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support--As the "creator" of this young category, it was my intent to group Civil War battlefields, not to identify their administrative status. THB

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

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

The result of the debate was withdrawn --Kbdank71 16:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've suggested this on the Category talk:People by occupation and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories with no response so I'm just going to propose it. These two catagories are basically the same. I think they should be merged under the new name Athletics which I prefer to Athletes because it can include related occupations like Coaching and Officiating. There are only two hobbies listed in the "People in connection..." category, Philatelists and Pranksters, which can be moved back to the main level for now. JeffW 17:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Well, if we're bringing this up... I've spent a lot of time in these categories lately, and wonder if a new heirarchy might be a good idea, with category:Sportspeople at the top, and everything branching out of it. So I'd suggest that some group come together and figure out the right way to organize these top-end articles so that it all make sense. I'd certainly volunteer to help with that.--Mike Selinker 19:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there is more to cleaning this up than this merge and I would be happy to discuss a more general solution. I tried to start a dialog on two different Talk pages with no result. When you say Sportspeople at the top, you mean as a subcategory of People by occupations, right? --JeffW 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In principle support merge, dislike name "athletics", which is only a synonym for "sports" in the US, and elsewhere means what USians would call "track and field", and also fails to convey in any way these are biographical article. "Sportspeople" is better. "Sports biographies" would also suffice. Factor out "hobby" aspect entirely. Alai 20:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't choose the name Sportspeople since it is already a subcategory of "People known...sports and hobbies" where it seems to mean the actual competitors instead of the ancillary jobs. Is it necessary that "people" be in the name for sub-catagories of "People by occupation"? So if we decided to lump all the financial occupations we'd have to call it something like Financepeople? --JeffW 21:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Category:People in sports, or the dreaded Category:Sports-related people, then. Or, merge to the first-named existing category. Alai 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Not sure that any change is needed and using "Athletes" is out of the question as it is otherwise used to mean what Americans call track and field athletes. CalJW 22:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly agree that "Athletes" is unusable for this purpose, whatever else happens.--Mike Selinker 23:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did I shoot myself in the foot by suggesting Athletes? It sure seems to be a sore spot. What would your objection be if it were to be named People in Sports? --JeffW 23:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose if one looks at where these are in the category system Category:Sports occupations is for articles about occupations, eg professional golfer while Category:People known in connection with sports and hobbies is for groups of biographical articles. Carina22 11:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now see that the problem isn't two redundant People by occupations categories but instead is that an Occupation category has wandered into the People space. This should be solved by just removing the errant Category tag from the Sports occupations page, so I'm withdrawing this request. I'll probably come back later to rename the People known... category. --JeffW 15:08, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename to Category:People who were pardoned by the President of the United States. If someone wants to create the other category and move articles from here to there, please feel free. --Kbdank71 16:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little uncertain of this, as there may be non-Americans in this, but as the description defines it and as the entries appear to conform to, it only includes those who have received pardons from the U.S. president or U.S. state governors. Maybe Category:Pardon recipients in the United States? Or should it be subdivided into Category:People who were pardoned by the President of the United States and Category:People who were pardoned by state governors in the United States? I'd be fine with any of those. Postdlf 16:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support the last two. Vegaswikian 19:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, let's go with those. Postdlf 22:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the last two, but perhaps changing the second one to "by state governors of the United States". ×Meegs 23:44, 27 February 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 --Kbdank71 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the current examples are mammals, and I suspect all future members will be as well. This renaming would also entail this category being changed from a subcategory of Category:Animals to Category:Mammals. Stemonitis 15:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Just be bold and do it. —Ashley Y 03:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well, OK, I've made the new cateory and moved the articles and sub-categories across, but I'll still need an admin to delete the old one (Category:Hybrid animals). --Stemonitis 08:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never worry about that. A category with no parents and no children is pretty harmless, and someone will come along to delete it sooner or later anyway. —Ashley Y 22:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Now where are we going to put edible frog? —Blotwell 07:51, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it in Category:Hybrid organisms, where it belongs, being neither a fruit nor a mammal. --Stemonitis 08:03, 3 March 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 --Kbdank71 16:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are the same thing. Right now, cat:USCongress redirects to cat:LBoftheUSG. However, the cat ought to be called Category:United States Congress and cat:LBoftheUSG should redirect to it. —Markles 14:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose. This conforms to Category:Judicial Branch of the United States Government and Category:Executive Branch of the United States Government, which cannot be similarly renamed, as those branches are not one unitary body or office. The U.S. government is organized into three branches, and the category system, as it is, properly reflects that. Postdlf 16:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• However… Just because two branches work that way, doesn't mean the third should. And while we're at it, perhaps Category:Executive Branch of the United States Government ought to be cfr'ed to Category:Presidency of the United States because it, too, is synonymous. Unlike Exec & Legis, the Judicial Branch is more than just one body: it's the Supreme court and the lower courts too. By the way, I've also cfr'ed Category:Article III tribunals for similar reasons (see its entry here).
• …But…
• …Let's Wait. As the proposer of this merger, I'm willing to withdraw this proposal. However, I think this discussion needs to continue here. So when the alotted seven days are over, and this is to be archived, perhaps then someone (maybe Postdlf?) can move this discussion to a relevant talk page for one of the three categories (legis, executive, judicial)
• OK? (I really didn't expect opposition, I just figured this had become Category creep). —Markles 19:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I supported the merging of Article III tribunals into Judicial Branch, but the Executive Branch is not simply the Presidency; it also includes the VP and the Executive Departments. I don't see what is to be gained from messing with any of this because the category structure is simple and accurate as it is. Postdlf 19:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We have three branches of government. Vegaswikian 19:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for clarity. The Constitution says Congress consists of the Senate and House of Representatives and the Congress category is drawn narrowly to that definition. This category allows LOC, AOC, Capitol Police, and so on to be grouped appropriately, as extensions of Congress but not part of Congress itself. - choster 21:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the categorization of the editors on this site, they are referred to as Wikipedians, not users. All the other categories are called "Blank" Wikipedians - Esprit15d 14:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Carina22 11:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename ditto Bmearns 20:28, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename in accordance with local usage as in Saint Lucia'sMinistry of Communications, Works, Transport & Public Utilities CalJW 10:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Hmm, for every other country the word "transportation" is used for the category. Pavel Vozenilek 21:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's total nonsense. There are 59 countries which use transport. CalJW 22:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology, I was too fast looking on the top of page only. Pavel Vozenilek 22:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Carina22 12:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this category should use "station" like the UK and Australia rather than "plant" like the U.S. because five of the entries use "station" but none use "plant". Rename Choalbaton 09:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment "Station" is also the most common use in Category:Nuclear power plants in the United States so perhaps both categories and the parent should also be renamed. - choster 20:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom unless a Canadian user advises it would be incorrect. Carina22 12:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. I am a Canadian; 'station is used more often than 'plant' in this context. The term 'power plant' is usually only applied to emergency generators and marine engines on large ships. --DV8 2XL 00:39, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be renamed as all the other by sport subcategories of Category:Sports by country use "country" rather than "nation". Choalbaton 08:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Piccadilly 17:59, 26 February 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 --Kbdank71 16:13, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should have been deleted at the same time as its three sparsely populated subcategories. The system in place is to use Category:Sports venues by country. Choalbaton 08:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 21:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Empty, speedy it. Alai 23:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was No action. Category was confirmed removed by deletion review mentioned below, so a rename debate is moot. — TexasAndroid 15:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correct English usage and clarify scope. (Since it was no concensus on delete, but there were also several proposals for renaming.) JRP 06:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Absolutely. They're definitely not standing, and they're definitely from the U.S.--Mike Selinker 06:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Since posting, category has been deleted, recreated, and deleted again. If an admin wants to delete this CFR, please go ahead. The category is currently in Wikipedia:Deletion_review and could be created again... JRP 06:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Man, this makes me angry. I'm not opposed to there being a review of this page, or that it comes to different conclusions than this forum, but the fact that there's no way to know about it unless somebody posts a request like the one above is very frustrating. At the very least, the review board's actions should be posted back here, and some time should be given for comment.--Mike Selinker 16:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review debate was closed leaving the category deleted. Vegaswikian 19:59, 23 February 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 --Kbdank71 16:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by Category:Malagasy alpine skiers (harmonization of Category:Alpine skiers). -- Citius 02:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; does not follow existing naming conventions for skier categories. --Muchness 02:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Sure.--Mike Selinker 16:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated --Kbdank71 16:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Currently the category contains an abbreviation, and the "Apple" is slightly ambiguous. By unambiguously naming the company and expanding the category from mere CEOs to all senior executives it has more potential for growth and brings it in line with, for instance, Category:Disney executives and Category:Ford executives. - choster 00:40, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, for clarity and breadth. ×Meegs 09:18, 25 February 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 --Kbdank71 16:05, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A strange way of categorising fictional characters based on the company producing or distributing the film they appeared in - one from Wallace and Gromit, one from Shrek and one group from Madagascar. I could understand Disney characters, or Aardman animations characters, but the characters in this category don't really have much in common. JW 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. There is some Disney-like commonality between most of their traditionally-animated films, but there aren't that many of those, and the set isn't easy to define. ×Meegs 14:23, 23 February 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.