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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 02:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from being a bad category name—it is an acronym—even if expanded it is a bad category, one based on very crude racial categorization and one which I cannot see ever serving a positive purpose. The acronym stands for "Asian Women Married to White Men". I don't think the race of someone's spouse is a useful form of categorization, for Wikipedia articles especially. Fastfission 00:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 01:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 05:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --(chubbstar) 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 06:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Dragging a subject's family into the article is usually trivial.--M@rēino 14:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 14:09, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 09:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To conform to naming conventions for other film categories. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 23:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom for consistency. --musicpvm 23:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Recury 23:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Luna Santin 11:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --(chubbstar) 05:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - LA @ 17:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.JB196 03:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Part of clearout of unused and useless opera categories. - Kleinzach 23:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, since both are empty. Marc Shepherd 00:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --(chubbstar) 05:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion proposed because these opera categories are difficult to define and not useful as genres. - Kleinzach 23:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Merchbow 11:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.--(chubbstar) 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 09:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At best, this is a duplication of Category:Far right political parties in France. Otherwise, its meaning is vague, and may include parties which have nothing in common (such as the Gaullists). The term "nationalism" itself is pretty problematic in the French context, where centralism is traditionally a left-wing ideology. Dahn 21:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thus Delete. Dahn 21:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gaullism is a proper noun, and should thus always be prefered over generic classification, such as nationalism, republicanism or liberalism. There is nothing wrong with having a nationalist parties category, otherwise any generic classification of political parties along ideological lines in Wikipedia is meaningless. Should liberal parties and socialist parties categories be deleted too? Intangible 22:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just refernce Category:Far right political parties in France to Category:Nationalist parties and get this over with? It is clear that all far right is, at the very least, a variation of nationalism, and all French parties that could be said to be nationalist but were not far right could be referenced there directly just as well? Dahn 22:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean Intangible by saying "gaullism" is a proper noun and should therefore be preferred to other categorizations? Which party today would you qualify as "gaullist"???!!! Chirac's UMP? Come on... De Gaulle was opposed to economic liberalism, are you aware of that? Please provide any references for this interesting opinion! Tazmaniacs 11:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably classify the UMP as conservative party, since it is a member of the International Democratic Union, which includes membership of many conservative parties, including the Conservative Party of Canada, the Conservative Party (UK) and Conservative Party of Norway (Hoyre), so your argument is vacuous. Intangible 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, so the UMP is Christian-Democrat? Are you kidding me? Tazmaniacs 13:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apart of this, do you really think that the International Democratic Union is fixing a common political line for all these various parties? So it would be kind of like the Third International? You should be aware that most right-wing parties are opposed to such political centralism... Tazmaniacs 13:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, aren't you aware that the vast majority of the UMP, and most of all Nicolas Sarkozy, are in favor of liberalism, which makes them "opponents" of conservatism if you insist on opposing conservatism to liberalism, which is a non-sense in the French context? Tazmaniacs 13:49, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberals can be conservatives for many reasons, foremostly because of tradition of liberalism in the respective country. This tradidition also exists in France (Chevalier, Bastiat and many others), although I doubt Sarkozy is building his party around this tradition. Intangible 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant category with far right political parties, and slippery categorisation. If you contest the fact that being nationalist in France is belonging to the far-right, than you should probably include in this category all French political parties, since as in any other countries, chauvinism and patriotism is a value founded everywhere, although it historically opposes itself to the left-wing's internationalism. In this sense of the word, even the French Communist Party has been nationalist! But nationalism is usually understood in France to refer to the far-right, and User:Intangible is trying to delete the "far right" category in order to replace it with this one. Tazmaniacs 11:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Patriotism is something completely different than the ideology of nationalism, maybe that's why the confusion. Intangible 13:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Then you accept that nationalism is a characteristic of far right parties. So why ask the deletion of category: far right parties except because you don't like the term? Tazmaniacs 13:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I accept nationalism because it is a political ideology, not because it is "far right." Intangible 21:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 09:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Violates WP:NCCAT because it's not plural; Category:Role-playing games already exists. Redundant with Category:Computer and video role-playing games. Muchness 21:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Computer and video role-playing games. David Kernow 21:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above Ace of Sevens 23:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above .Ansolin 14:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per above --(chubbstar) 05:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. - LA @ 17:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus on Esperanto; rename others. Conscious 09:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following should be renamed for consistency with other categories in Category:Films by language (and to avoid confusion). See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 11#Category:Films by language.

• • Category:Chinese language films to Category:Chinese-language films (the hyphen is gramatically correct)
  • Category:Mandarin films to Category:Mandarin-language films
  • Category:Hindi films to Category:Hindi-language films
  • Category:Kannada language films to Category:Kannada-language films
  • Category:Malayalam films to Category:Malayalam-language films
  • Category:Tamil films to Category:Tamil-language films
  • Category:Telugu films to Category:Telugu-language films
  • Category:Urdu films to Category:Urdu-language films
  • Category:Esperanto films should be deleted as the Esperanto film article states that there are only 2 films that have been shot in Esperanto. The category will not be expanded.

--musicpvm 20:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom & previous discussion. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 22:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom & previous discussion; but maybe keep the Esperanto one. — N-true 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all but keep the Esperanto one. Casper Claiborne 06:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. utcursch | talk 07:26, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all and delete the Esperanto cat. A cat with only two pages seems trivial. The cat should be made later should Esperanto film making becomes more widespread. --(chubbstar) 05:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all and keep the Esperanto one. I can't see a good reason why we should delete it - for those films above all it is a useful think to categorize by, since they are primarily notable due to the language they are recorded in! TheGrappler 17:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all, keep Category:Esperanto films per TheGrappler. I suppose "Films in X" for these categories (where X = a language) has previously been rejected...?  Regards, David Kernow 04:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, that was proposed earlier this year. You can see the discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 January 16#Films by language. --musicpvm 01:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 09:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems distinctly over-specific, with only half a dozen or so articles, including the parent topic. Maybe we are just woefully under-covering this, but I suspect there might be a better and more inclusive category. Just zis Guy you know? 19:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dahn 22:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep France was the most populous Catholic country in the world for much of the relevant period. Merchbow 11:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. We have plenty of other such categories. See Category:Roman Catholic orders and societies. If anything, this category should be renamed with proper capitalisation. -/- Warren 17:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Find a more inclusive cat. --(chubbstar) 05:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Having had a quick look at the article it seems to be a reasonable topic for a category. Honbicot 06:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Early Rename by Keenan Pepper (talk · contribs)

Categories should be plural, so it should be Category:Oases (landforms) or simply Category:Oases, since there is no longer a naming conflict with the band Oasis. —Keenan Pepper 18:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to Category:Oases. --musicpvm 18:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Oases. David Kernow 21:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Oases. Verne Equinox 13:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong case, plus we already have Category:Cinema of Ireland and Category:Irish films and their sub-cats. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (empty) per nom. --musicpvm 18:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. David Kernow 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Casper Claiborne 06:05, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 09:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a big deal, but the relevant nationality is mentioned before "religion" in the names of all the subcategories, so it would be neat if the parent category reflected that. Chicheley 17:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Chicheley 17:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 18:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 05:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 09:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Wildlife Ranch at San Antonio, Texas is not notable enough for a category. The ranch does not have a Wikipedia article. Searching google for "Wildlife Ranch in San Antonio" returns only a handful of results. Ezeu 16:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. It definitely does not deserve a category. --musicpvm 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 18:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom TerraFrost 18:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category; list in article. David Kernow 21:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 09:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Empty cat. Intangible 16:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 21:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 09:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains one article. Too fine a categorisation. Bluap 15:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Osomec 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm not entirely impartial, since I created this cat. FTP Software says, It was the first of many companies to name themselves after an Internet protocol. When I read that, I figured it made sense to have a category to collect them (even though I had no clue what they might be). Maybe that statement is just lame and should be stricken from FTP Software? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The statement is accurate. For example, unlike my old friends at FTP Software, SNMP Research is still around. But really, this isn't that useful a category. Make a list instead. We've had quite a few of them over the years, these companies come and go, and many will never be that notable. --William Allen Simpson 17:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a list inherently better than a category? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A list can have entries for defunct companies that we don't have articles for, to give us an idea what else needs to be written, or just to annotate with nice references. --William Allen Simpson 07:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• keep, sadly we have worse Antares33712 02:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 02:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains one promotional photograph Bluap 15:44, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Advertising. Osomec 18:18, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. David Kernow 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 06:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For consistancy with its parent category of Category:British military aircraft Bluap 15:43, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Abstaining per below, having voted for Category:British-built military aircraft in service, to (a) keep nationality at start of category name; and (b) indicate that the nationality identifies manufacturer, per template here. Suggest related categories treated similarly. Regards, David Kernow 21:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC), updated 04:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This category doesn't mean British-built, it means aircraft currently in service with the British armed forces, regardless of country of manufacture. It isn't meant to be a sub-cat of British military aircraft, which is why it doesn't follow the naming convention. JW 19:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Currently Category:Active United Kingdom military aircraft is a subcategory of Category:British military aircraft... Is this a mistake...?  Unsure, David Kernow 04:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was relist for more opinions. Conscious 06:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ambiguous categorization. If this category is supposed to list "Antifa" movements it should state so. Intangible 14:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• So, why should it be deleted? Mário 21:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What means activism in this case? If it just opposition to neo Nazism, this would include pretty much everyone. Intangible 13:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 11:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to apply the "in X" naming convention for Sport categories as published at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Sport to the following provincial, territorial, and municipal sport categories for Canada. They currently go by an "X sports" wording, which is clumsy and ambiguous. "In x" is used at the national and sub-national level for other countries (Ex Category:Sport in Australia, Category:Sport in Queensland, Category:Sport in Brisbane), and is recommended for here as well for reasons of clarity, precision, and consistency.

• Category:Alberta sports to Category:Sport in Alberta
• Category:British Columbia sports to Category:Sport in British Columbia
• Category:Manitoba sports to Category:Sport in Manitoba
• Category:New Brunswick sports to Category:Sport in New Brunswick
• Category:Newfoundland and Labrador sports to Category:Sport in Newfoundland and Labrador
• Category:Northwest Territories sports to Category:Sport in the Northwest Territories
• Category:Nova Scotia sports to Category:Sport in Nova Scotia
• Category:Ontario sports to Category:Sport in Ontario
• Category:Prince Edward Island sports to Category:Sport in Prince Edward Island
• Category:Quebec sports to Category:Sport in Quebec
• Category:Saskatchewan sports to Category:Sport in Saskatchewan
• Category:Yukon sports to Category:Sport in the Yukon
• Category:Calgary sports to Category:Sport in Calgary
• Category:Edmonton sports to Category:Sport in Edmonton
• Category:Vancouver sports to Category:Sport in Vancouver
• Category:Victoria sports to Category:Sport in Victoria, British Columbia
• Category:Winnipeg sports to Category:Sport in Winnipeg
• Category:Cornwall sports to Category:Sport in Cornwall, Ontario
• Category:Guelph sports to Category:Sport in Guelph
• Category:Montreal sports to Category:Sport in Montreal
• Category:Quebec City sports to Category:Sport in Quebec City
• Category:Ottawa sports to Category:Sport in Ottawa
• Category:Toronto sports to Category:Sport in Toronto
• Category:Oshawa sports to Category:Sport in Oshawa
• Category:Owen Sound sports to Category:Sport in Owen Sound

Note: Cornwall and Victoria are disambiguated to distinguish from sport in X categories of Victoria, Australia, and Cornwall, United Kingdom. --Kurieeto 13:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all as suggested. Choalbaton 13:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for consistency. Mindmatrix 14:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. Sport is indeed correct per Canadian English in this context. If I may suggest a friendly amendment, it should be Category:Sport in the Northwest Territories -The Tom 14:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My mistake, thanks for catching that, I've made the correction. Kurieeto 17:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all, and include the definite article in NWT per The Tom. BoojiBoy 14:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all and include the Bluap 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Osomec 18:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 11:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the exception to the general practice mentioned in my recent nomination below, and it is a particularly confusing one as there is also a subcategory called category:Leo Tolstoy. For that matter, this shouldn't have been in Category:Categories named after people at all. Calsicol 12:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Calsicol 12:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bluap 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 21:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename (tho I'm going to keep a catredirect on beethoven). Syrthiss 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most categories for individual people use both forename and surname. Calsicol 12:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as above. Calsicol 12:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Bluap 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 21:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 11:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as part of the general move towards clearer names for familes and royal houses. Sumahoy 12:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Luna Santin 12:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Bluap 15:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 21:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Delete (already empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty when I found it. The correct category is Category:Irish snooker players. Chicheley 12:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Chicheley 12:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Bluap 15:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 18:20, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 11:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for clarity. Chicheley 10:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 12:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 21:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Overwhelming Keep --William Allen Simpson 02:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Originally nominated as an AfD by karas with the comment: "This category must be eliminated. There are simply too many American Catholics, as opposed to other countries. What is more it is completely unnecessary. There are so many sub and sub-sub categories that this broad a category is unneeded, and if everyone who belongs is added it will be unmanageable." This is a procedural move from AfD to CfD - No Vote. Tevildo 09:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If we start deleting American categories for being the largest of their kind Category:United States will soon be rather patchy. Chicheley 10:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If a category is too large, that implies it's being used very often and should probably be subcategorized instead of deleted. I'm not entirely sure if I'm happy with the subcat scheme in Category:American Roman Catholic priests (needs naming consistency), but that's probably better saved for another discussion. Luna Santin 11:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but don't subcategorize (except for priests, nuns etc) as doing so will generate category clutter. Sumahoy 12:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If a meaningful category is too large, it makes more sense to subcategorize it than to delete it. --Cswrye 05:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think sub-catting is the way to sort out this cat if it becomes unwieldly --(chubbstar) 05:58, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I do not understand you people. Who is going to transfer all the needed names to this new category (American Roman Catholics) from all the existing categories. If a category is created then to maintain integrity it must be filled, not just by a handful of names but by all names of all individuals who qualify. Who is going to do all that work? Is it even possible to accomplish? Isn't this an encyclopedia? Can't a person read the text to determine the nationality of the individual? All these "national" categories are becoming ridiculous and are damaging Wikipedia's integrity and credibility.Ciociabasia 00:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have plenty of time. It is not a secret that Wikipedia is a work in progress and if this category brings that fact to the attention of more readers that will be welcome. Honbicot 19:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep. Syrthiss 11:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The highways are all called King's Highways. Alternately, if this name is too obscure, maybe Category:Numbered highways of Ontario. But it should be made clear that this is for numbered highways, and not all highways - Category:Ontario roads is for the latter. --SPUI (T - C) 06:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP:POINT nomination made as an end run around a talk page dispute. "X provincial highways" is the standard naming format for Canadian provincial highway system categories (see Category:British Columbia provincial highways, Category:Alberta provincial highways, Category:Saskatchewan provincial highways, etc.), and not only should the Ontario category's name stay in accordance with the existing standard, it will stay in accordance with the existing standard. Oppose. Bearcat 08:35, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is nothing of the sort. I would like to remind the closer that CFD is not a vote, and "votes" like this one without valid arguments should not be counted. --SPUI (T - C) 08:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation: "ignore anybody who disagrees with me". Question for you: do you have a valid reason why Ontario should be pulled out of a clear and unambiguous existing standard? Bearcat 08:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beg pardon, but you are not in sole charge of Wikipedia. Sumahoy 12:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And neither is SPUI. Bearcat 17:16, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because I'm not convinced that we should be straying from naming consistency; further, the article King's Highway (Ontario) is nothing more than a redirect to List of Ontario provincial highways. Luna Santin 12:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, several non-King's Highways are listed there currently. Kirjtc2 13:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main Street Tunnel? --SPUI (T - C) 15:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Niagara Road 27. A county road and an internal provincial highway (not King's Highway) designation. Kirjtc2 15:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So a parent category could be made for these, in which the new cat and Category:Ontario secondary highways would lie. Hell, we could keep the present cat and make a new one for the King's Highways. --SPUI (T - C) 15:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But why would we want to? We're not writing for roadgeeks, we're writing for the general public. They won't know, or care, about all the different classes of highway. All they're concerned about is that it's a highway in Ontario. Kirjtc2 16:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, per Kirjtc2. Mindmatrix 14:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I live in Ontario and always travel on provincial highways not kings highways.Ansolin 14:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We drive on provincial highways in Ontario. -/- Warren 17:56, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, it's Provincial Highway in common parlance. 132.205.95.27

• Oppose, SPUI has demonstrated no knowledge of roads outside the SE US. I've travelled on Queen's Highway, and QEW (Queen Elizabeth Way), too. Not even the signs call them King's Highways. King's Highway (Ontario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was made by SPUI recently! --William Allen Simpson 17:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "King's Highway" is correct parlance in Ontario and the signs have only disincluded the term since 1993. [1] I still say keep the cat as it is, but a small amount of research would prevent statements to the effect that "King's Highway doesn't exist". BoojiBoy 22:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's said the term doesn't exist; the statement was that nobody in common parlance calls them that, which is entirely true. Bearcat 04:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting on I live in Ontario and always travel on provincial highways not kings highways. I agreed with your POV, just pointing out a fact. BoojiBoy 02:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per WP:NC and parent category: Category:Provincial highways in Canada --Usgnus 03:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Kings Highway. True, people call them provincial highways, and they ARE provincial highways, their LEGAL designation is Kings Highway, as listed at the MTO website. They were called Provincial Highways from 1915-1930, when they were re-designated as Kings Highways. The Kings' Highway, official source of information. HOWEVER, there should also be a note or redirect for provincial highways, explaining this. User:Raccoon Fox • Talk 01:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the link you provide to http://www.mto.gov.on.ca ("MTO website") has little/nothing about King's Highways (other than a link to Ministry-Approved Beginner Driver Education Courses with an address of "810 King's Highway, Fort Frances ON"), yet there are about 130 references to "provincial highway". And http://www.thekingshighway.ca/ is not an "official source of information" (note there's no mto.gov.on.ca), it's just some fan site.

--William Allen Simpson 08:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC) Note from closing admin - Personally I agree with Bluap that it should be kept so when the cleanup push swings to unsourced statements we can start grinding through the cat, but at the same time the current formation is extremely unwieldy. If we're going to eventually cat them by month and year like {{cleanup-date}} then we'll still have to retouch the template to have them dumped into the correct M/Y cats. Syrthiss 19:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is populated with all the articles with the citation needed templates. It is absolutely vast, and the chances of it ever being cleared are next to zero. It would only be valuable if it helped people to work on a backlog of unsourced statements, but given its size, and the fact that most of the articles are on subjects any given user has little interest in, I can't see it being used in that way very much. Seeing the category at the bottom of a page gives a bad impression which may not be justified (or conversely indentifying only certain articles in this way can be seen as inappropriate as nearly all articles contain unsourced statements). Another annoying attribute is that as a template driven category it appears first on the list of categories at the bottom of each page, ahead of categories which are much more useful for navigation for the non-editing reader (ie well over 99% of visitors). Navigation is the primary purpose of the category system, but this category interferes with that, and does so most often on very popular articles, which are more likely to be in it. Chicheley 04:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as above. Chicheley 04:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Sumahoy 12:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong Keep It's useful as a sub-category of the generic cleanup category. There might not be much effort clearing the back-up now, as the emphasis is on clearing the wikification backlog. However, this might change in the future. If it's getting too big, then it can be categorised by month, as with the other large cleanup categories. Bluap 15:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As a template-based category it can easily be recreated in the future, but I can't see that that would ever be beneficial. Osomec 18:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Self-referential. As a minimum administrative categories should be hidden by default, but that would require a software upgrade. Merchbow 16:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, useful cleanup category... and we shouldn't be hiding away articles which are in need of attention. How would you propose to identify them without the category? Thanks/wangi 10:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Ultra strong delete I just inadvertantly added this to an article (one of three cinemas which is the oldest in the UK according to its article!) and it's a nuisance. Wikipedia should be optimised for readers, not for editors. It says so in at least one policy. Choalbaton 16:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep, not sure how to deal with the size problem but I use it as a highlight for when people put the {{citationneeded}} templates on. Categorising by month etc would be fine for the {{unreferenced}} style, but may not work for the simple inline tags. No real need to delete because of these problems though. It is not a shameful thing to have Wikipedia articles labelled like this. Dont hide the problem of lack of references on some/many articles by removing this very visible sign. It is an incentive to get sources, not leave the claims unverified. Ansell 00:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is not shameful, but it's a nuisance to readers and an amateurish self-inflicted wound to Wikipedia's navigability. Choalbaton 14:14, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. When an article is not properly proven, we should warn the reader in every way possible.--M@rēino 14:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not a service to readers, it is absolutely a disservice to them, and evidence that too many editors look at Wikipedia from an editor's perspective and forget the needs of the reader. The warning exists in the article and this does nothing but hinder navigation. Choalbaton 14:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic. Landolitan 14:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This hasn't been thought through. It is found not only on minor articles, but on every article where someone has added a citation request for a minor detail, and it gets in the way of the other categories on such articles. It is too large to be of much use for people to find articles on their specialist subjects, but if it is subdivided, some articles could be added to many different subcategories, which would be dreadful. Cloachland 15:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've just come across this on a featured article, where a rather unnecessary reference request has been made. Some people will add {{fact}} almost anywhere, leading to this self-reference spreading like a plague (note the creation date of the category to ascertain why it is becoming so much more prevalent, and guess at how much worse it could get over a longer period). It gives readers a bad impression, but it doesn't help them in any way. ReeseM 21:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Presentation should trump other considerations. Honbicot 19:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is almost totally useless. Nonomy 15:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I view this as a MediaWiki problem. Meta-information such as stub messages, this type of categories, and the "citation needed" note, should be entered as meta-information to the articles. When that distinction is made, stub messages and this type of categories may end up in the sidebar, and the "citation needed" note may only be viewed by turning it on in your personal preferences. When that isn't implemented yet... I don't know. Patrik Hägglund 08:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rare-name. Syrthiss 19:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Change ambiguous title to a clear and stylistically compliant one. Eluchil404 04:41, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --musicpvm 05:28, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. "Well-done Wikipedians," anyone? Luna Santin 10:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 12:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Copy to BJAODN, then rename per nom. I can't believe dozens of people were signing up for a category that listed them as being a rare steak.--M@rēino 14:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename both. Syrthiss 19:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Motor racing circuits in Spain → Category:Motor racing venues in Spain
• Category:Motor racing circuits in the United Kingdom → Category:Motor racing venues in the United Kingdom

To match the naming of the other similar categories at Category:Motor racing venues. Recury 03:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nom. I also noticed Category:Formula One circuits, but I don't know enough about the subject matter to say if "Formula One venues" would be appropriate. Oh, and Category:NASCAR tracks. Maaaybe those should be saved for another discussion, but at the least I'll mention them here for comment. Luna Santin 11:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Formula One circuit" is the correct usage. Personally, I would reverse rename all "Motor racing venues" to "Motor racing circuits". At least they're generally called circuits in UK English. Bluap 15:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd say rallying is a form of motor racing which doesn't necessarily take place at a track or circuit, so "Motor racing venue" seems a suitably generic description... Regards, David Kernow 21:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that was my thinking too; rallies don't loop around (except the special stages) so you can't really call them a circuit. As for the NASCAR tracks/Formula One circuits thing, I figure it's just local usage. Feel free to nominate them for a change elsewhere if you feel strongly enough about it though. Recury 23:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not strong feeling – simple ignorance!  Regards, David 04:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename both per nom. "Venues" is the best option for sports facilities in cases where local usage varies. Merchbow 11:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per nom. Included in the Category:Motor racing circuits in the United Kingdom is a hillclimb, for which venue would be far better than circuit. Alexj2002 15:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both per above. David Kernow 04:45, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Supermajority Delete (7d:4k), already a List of Neighbours and Home and Away actors turned musicians, and all the members are already in Category:Neighbours actors and Category:Australian musicians -- no need for intersection category --William Allen Simpson 02:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Neighbours actors who are also musicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Listcruft. Indiscriminate collection of information. A too fine granularity of differentiation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 04:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't think many British or Australian people would call this is "indiscriminate". The Aussie soap star cum Anglo-Aussie pop star phenomenon is one of the better known aspects of the pop music of the two countries over the last twenty years. Chicheley 04:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is important information. Ramseystreet 06:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category of cast members of an arbitrarily selected show who are also active in another arbitrarily selected medium. What is encyclopaedic about actors from an individual show who are also recorded musicians - especially given what is already known about Kylie Minogue, and her start in the business (which was that pete Waterman saw a marketing opportunity). Just zis Guy you know? 11:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Bluap 15:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is over-categorization. --Cswrye 05:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is not arbitary. If there is one show that should have such a category it is this one, and if there is one profession Neighbours actors should be cross categorised with it is this one. Casper Claiborne 06:07, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Recury 13:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Chicheley and my comments at the list AfD. Ansell 00:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment It's not technically "listcruft" - it's a category - but the cross-categorization is unusual. Then again, it seems to be a category for what amounts to a unique cultural phenomenon. Personally I'd recommend just bunging the list that already exists onto the appropriate "See also" pages. TheGrappler 17:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 11:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was in speedy for renaming to Category:Italian-English people, but this type of hyphenated usage is not normal in the UK and many such categories have been deleted already.

• Delete as nom. Chicheley 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or preferably Delete. Oppose rename in any event Bluap 15:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This may well be a recreation of a deleted category. Osomec 18:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is an on-going debate about the hyphen. I assure that it does not duplicate anything, so why then not just wait for it to be renamed, then nominate it for renaming without the hyphen?! Dahn 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Merchbow 11:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People, rename it to whatever, but do not delete! The point about this category is that it was an atrocious misnomer (it is not for Italians of English heritage, but for English people of Italian heritage): if the hyphen is a misnomer as well, then drop the hyphen. WHY would anyone delete the category itself?! Dahn 11:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Honbicot 06:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.
  1. There's no debate about the hyphen, it doesn't belong in Nationality Ethnicity (as opposed to Ethnicity-Nationality). That debate is over and settled.
  2. Rather, this debate is about, for example:
     1. Minnie Driver "was born to parents of English, Irish, Scottish, Italian and French descent."
        • What is she, a fractional distillate?
        • Not a single verifiable reference that she considers herself to be "English Italian" or is an English advocate for "Italians".
     2. Lita Ford "was born in London but is of Italian heritage. She moved with her family to the United States while still very young."
        • So, not even English nationality! She's an American!
        • And no verifiable reference of self-identification as "English Italian", or "English-American", or "Italian-American", either....
  3. So far, not a single proper use of such a category. Delete it!

  -- William Allen Simpson 18:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per William Allen Simpson Twittenham 21:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Gentlemen, I have noticed that very few, if any, categories (or articles, for matter) that involve hyphens have correct combining forms. The correct name of this category would be Anglo-Italians or perhaps Italo-Englishmen No disrespect has been implied.--Anglius 19:25, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this simply a continuation of the American drive to reference their country people by their homelands in a politically correct way? I have never heard of anyone put two nationalities together except for "ExampleCountry American". Ansell 00:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all as modified for locality. Syrthiss 11:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-cats of Category:Non-profit organizations by country are currently generally named with the "Fooian x" convention. I believe this should be changed to the "based in x" convention, because Fooian x is ambiguous. It leaves the scope of the category unclear - Does the category contain exclusively non-profit organizations formally based in the country in question, or instead/in addition include non-profit organizations whose activities and intentions include the country in question, while the organization itself is based elsewhere? Switching to the "based in x" wording, as is used for this category's parent Category:Organizations by country (Ex Category:Organizations based in Japan) would eliminate this ambiguity and serve consistency. The following renamings are proposed:

• Category:Australian non-profit organizations to Category:Non-profit organisations based in Australia
• Category:Hong Kong non-profit organisations to Category:Non-profit organisations based in Hong Kong
• Category:Mexican non-profit organizations to Category:Non-profit organizations based in Mexico
• Category:Non-profit organizations of Pakistan to Category:Non-profit organisations based in Pakistan
• Category:Singaporean non-profit organisations to Category:Non-profit organisations based in Singapore
• Category:United States non-profit organizations to Category:Non-profit organizations based in the United States

--Kurieeto 01:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Changed "z" to "s" in "organizations" for Pakistan and Australia as per local usages, please see parents Category:Organisations based in Pakistan and Category:Organisations based in Australia. Kurieeto 22:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Chicheley 02:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 02:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Luna Santin 10:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom Bluap 15:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but the "z" in organization should be changed to an "s" in two of them. The Australian and Pakistan ones should be renamed to Category:Non-profit organisations based in Australia and Category:Non-profit organisations based in Pakistan respectively (see Category:Organisations based in Australia and Category:Organisations based in Pakistan).

Comment I recognized that potential problem, but I originally didn't want to change the spelling of "organiz/sations" in this nomination, which was intended to only deal with a different specific wording change. But I'm fine altering the proposal as you suggest, and have ammended it so. Kurieeto 22:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Maybe some kind of Wikipedia locale system might sort out the time spent on American/Other English differences... Regards, David Kernow 22:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename with the amendments to the "s" spelling as proposed by Kurieeto. ReeseM 21:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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