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 Speedy rename per speedy #4 naming conventions. ∞Who?¿? 20:06, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard category name. Rename category:History of Moldova. CalJW 14:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per standard. (SEWilco 02:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Speedy per new speedy-rule #4. -Splash^talk 02:41, 7 October 2005 (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 15:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to get the phrase "topics related to" out of the name, and make it more clear to readers what it is about. Please see the previous CFR, which was closed with no consensus. Please note that the category page currently describes the category as being for Articles relating to transitioning of transsexual people. -- Reinyday, 14:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There were several servicable suggestions made during the prior CfR, but too many good ideas made for no clear consensus. I concur with Reinyday that the current proposal is both best, and showed widest support in prior CfR. Note that I changed the wording of the category description slightly to match the topics included: that is, I allowed it to include general transgender issues, not only (medical) transexualism. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters

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 --Kbdank71 15:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard category. Merge into standard category:Ethnic groups of Greece. CalJW 12:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to standard category. -- Reinyday, 11:52, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per standard. (SEWilco 02:26, 6 October 2005 (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 15:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard category containing one article. Rename to standard category:Science and technology in Greece. I will add whatever other relevant articles there are. CalJW 11:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per standard. (SEWilco 02:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename does seem sensible here, though I wonder if we are losing granularity in historical articles. Science and technology weren't always as nearly-the-same as they are today. -Splash^talk 02:41, 7 October 2005 (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 Speedy merge per rule #4. ∞Who?¿? 20:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just created the standard form category:Government of Ukraine, but then I discovered that this one already existed. So let's merge category:Ukrainian government into category:Government of Ukraine. CalJW 10:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per standard. (SEWilco 02:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Speedy per new speedy-rule #4. -Splash^talk 02:41, 7 October 2005 (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 Category already slotted for merge/deletion in previous Cfd. ∞Who?¿? 18:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to remoninate this category, since it barely ended its merger voting. User:Instantnood started adding social institutions without waiting the implementation of the previous decision.

Not only it will be a source of confusion (suppose someone will use a script to merge the castegory and thusly move category:Core issues in ethics into "Organizarions")...

A more serious objection is it is bad, I say BAD idea to use ambiguous words as category titles. There is so much confusion with categorization. This instanhood's instant decision contributes to it.

Not to say that his understanding of the word "institution" is disputable. For example, I reverted his classification of Category:Customary categories of people into Category:Institutions. mikka (t) 07:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is to "cease and desist" for this category, i.e., delete after merging. mikka (t) 07:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, all contents in the hierarchy that should be moved to the organisations counterpart, including category:institutions and category:institutions by country, except those within the institutions in Foo categories (i.e. subcategories of category:institutions by country), are already relocated appropriately. Therefore nothing else has to be moved, and the things to decide in this nomination would be i) whether categories for institutions (check the article for its definitions) are necessary, if yes, ii) whether there is a better word that would be less confusing. — Instantnood 08:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  What did Charitable trust and some others do in this category then? It is an organization, pre and simple (I recategorized it a sec ago). mikka (t) 19:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete when the rename/merge is done. This decision has only just been taken by a large majority so it is disruptive to attempt overturn it. The category system is a navigation tool for the average user. Attempting to create categories based on academic definitions of everyday English words is just a recipe for confusion. CalJW 09:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact the deletion should just proceed as it would have done if instanthood hadn't taken action. She didn't even let the bot have time to do its work. This just isn't on. It's no different from any other recreation of a category which has just been voted for deletion by someone who disagrees with the decision. If instanthood wants a new category, s(he) should come up with the new name and create it, not ask others to do the work. But I think it is extremely unlikely that any new category as fundamental as she seems to want is required. Surely the politics/social sciences area has sufficient basic categories already. We should not have overlapping category systems based on personal interpretations any more than we need point of view forks of articles. The meaning of "institution" can be discussed in the article, and that is probably all that is required. We don't explode every major article into a category. CalJW 10:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • From what I read from the institution article, and the edit history of the article and the category, it looks like the category was created for the definition mentioned in that article. It was at some point that people didn't realise the purpose of the category, and started categorising organisations to that category and its children categories. This was not addressed in the previous CFM until I talked about it.. and there was just a few replies. I would consider the previous discussion a not well-informed one, and would like to seek opinion from the community on better alternatives, if the word "institutions" as the name of the category is deemed confusing and inappropriate. — Instantnood 15:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • You still don't undertsnad the problem and the objections posted here. First of all you better seek an opinion of the community on what is supposed to be in this category, and only then look for a name, not vice versa: pick a word then pump the list. As I see from your intentions, you may be looking for "category:Social institutions", which may be further subdivided in category:Informal institutions (ethics, justice) category:Formalized institutions (marriage, law, government). Since this is a pretty high-level category, any additions into it must be discussed at its Category talk:Social institutions page. mikka (t) 19:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • See also Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion#category:institutions. — Instantnood 18:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note the purpose of this Cfd was for deletion. The previous Cfd was to merge/delete, this is a duplicate Cfd. Cfd closings are currently backed up, which is the only reason this category still exists. Please continue the discussion at the Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_deletion#category:institutions page. ∞Who?¿? 18:47, 4 October 2005 (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 15:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency in naming -- the main article on "Weird Al" Yankovic is titled with the quotes, as is the parent category. This is the orthography preferred by the artist. -- Tyler 05:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A previous discussion of the quotes issue resulted in no consensus. -- Reinyday, 14:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP as is, it's easier to navigate this way. 132.205.45.148 17:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing this and I don't understand it... why is it easier to navigate? It's not like the category is going to be alphabetized under the quote character or anything. -- Tyler 17:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match the article. -Splash^talk 02:41, 7 October 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 15:03, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(proposed merge, although the destination category is currently empty) Consistency in naming -- the main article on "Weird Al" Yankovic is titled with the quotes, as is the parent category. This is the orthography preferred by the artist. -- Tyler 05:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: A previous discussion of the quotes issue resulted in no consensus. -- Reinyday, 14:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP as is, it's easier to navigate this way. 132.205.45.148 17:40, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match the article. -Splash^talk 02:41, 7 October 2005 (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 15:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories should be spelt in full where possible to avoid possible confusions in future. Rename as Category:University of Hong Kong.--Huaiwei 03:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename CalJW 06:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per standard. (SEWilco 02:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename away from abbreviations. -Splash^talk 02:41, 7 October 2005 (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 14:58, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no convention for national golf categories yet, and the 12 categories are split 50:50 between "X golf" and "Golf in X". However "sports by country", "ice hockey by country", "cricket by country" and rugby all use "X [name of sport]" as do 14 out of 15 basketball categories and the vast majority of football/soccer by country categories. Therefore I suggest we standardise the golf categories on the same lines:

• category:Golf in Australia --> category:Australian golf
• category:Golf in Germany --> category:German golf
• category:Golf in India --> category:Indian golf
• category:Golf in South Africa --> category:South African golf
• category:Golf in Spain --> category:Spanish golf
• category:Golf in the United States --> category:American golf

Rename all CalJW 02:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If this goes through there are other anomalies to sort out, but for sports which only have a handful of categories, such as tennis, which has four categories, split 50:50 on the same basis as golf. CalJW 02:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Using the word "American" to mean "of the United States" was the original issue which led to the by-country conventions section of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). The original issue was not resolved (the claim is that using "American" to refer exclusively to the United States is offensive to residents of other countries in the North and South American continents). A signficant fraction of the editors involved in this discussion favored renaming all categories using a "Nationality x" form, even the highly numerous profession by nationality ones, to "x in/of/from country" form to avoid this issue as well as the issue of other countries that don't have an obvious nationality adjective (e.g. Trinidad and Tobago). -- Rick Block (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the objection is appropriate as the normal English usage of "American" is clear. Consistency is desirable, so I still think we should go ahead with this.CalJW 06:33, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - The American versus United States debate I don't think will be concluded satisfactorily sometime soon. However I think in sport there is a clear precedent with American football that the term can be used. It's also worth pointing out that although a significant fraction opposed nationality usage, the policy agreed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) seems to support nationality usage for people, and notes that further discussion is, at the least, to follow. Why not let this be the further debate for sports? Hiding talk 09:28, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. I think that all the other sport categories should be renamed to "Sport in Country" to be like these (and I think even if this rename goes through, someone will nominate it for naming back sometime soon). Almost all other categories are named as "Thing in/of/from Country", except when refering to people. -- Reinyday, 14:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Reinyday. "Golf in Fooland" sounds much better than "Fooish golf". It's true that for the other sports "Fooish cricket/rugby/ice hockey/basketweaving" does seem to predominate, but [perceived personal attack removed] nevertheless I think it's important to be able to distinguish between American football and "Football (whichever meaning) in the United States", or for that matter between Canadian football and "Football (again whichever meaning) in Canada". --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 16:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a clearcut personal attack. Please withdraw it. CalJW 09:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Firstly, I agree that Golf in Fooland sounds better than Fooish golf. But also, what about situations where the Fooish bar precedent would give us things like "American Canadian football" or "Canadian American football"? -The Tom 22:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Okay, do it the other way round, but please do the nominations for the other sports in the near future. CalJW 09:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Reverse rename to standard "X in country" name pattern. (SEWilco 02:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose — "Gold of Fooland" sounds much better, and reverse merge any that need it. -Splash^talk 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Prefer "Golf in Fooland". siafu 03:35, 10 October 2005 (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 Speedy rename per speedy-rule #4 see Naming conventions. ∞Who?¿? 20:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow missed this one before. Rename to standard form Category:Government of Georgia (country). CalJW 01:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Hiding talk 09:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per standard. (SEWilco 02:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Speedy per new speedy-rule #4. -Splash^talk 02:41, 7 October 2005 (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 14:51, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Following some recent deletions this is now the only London area category which is not for one of the official local government subdivisions of the city. There was a formal definition for this area in the days of the London Docklands Development Corporation, but that only existed from 1981 to 1998 and it was a special purpose economic agency, not a local government area. This is essentially an exploded article and it becomes less relevant all the time as redevelopment in East London increasingly focuses on the Lower Lea Valley and the Thames Gateway. It is also incomplete and has barely expanded in months. There are two main two sub-categorisation sytems for London, by subject area, and by borough. There is a good deal of overlap between this category and Category:London infrastructure. Delete CalJW 01:20, 4 October 2005 (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 14:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be Category:Soccer players in the United States by club in line with policy against abbreviations. (Note that the U.S./American issue is not relevant as the players aren't all American) Rename CalJW 01:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Hiding talk 09:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per standard. (SEWilco 02:26, 6 October 2005 (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 14:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bad name, should be renamed. Adam78 00:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree: Spelling should match article Irredentism. (SEWilco 18:02, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Speedy for spelling. siafu 03:36, 10 October 2005 (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 14:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Like their Canadian counterparts these do not follow the standard "of" format for political categories, so they should all be renamed. Fortunately only 14 have been created so far, or at least only that many are listed in Category:Politics of the U.S. by state

• category:Hawaii politics --> category:Politics of Hawaii
• category:Illinois politics --> category:Politics of Illinois
• category:Iowa politics --> category:Politics of Iowa
• category:Minnesota politics --> category:Politics of Minnesota
• category:Mississippi politics --> category:Politics of Mississippi
• category:Montana politics --> category:Politics of Montana
• category:New Hampshire politics --> category:Politics of New Hampshire
• category:New Jersey politics --> category:Politics of New Jersey
• Category:New York politics --> category:Politics of New York
• category:North Dakota politics --> category:Politics of North Dakota
• category:Ohio politics --> category:Politics of Ohio
• category:Pennsylvania politics --> category:Politics of Pennsylvania
• category:Texas politics --> category:Politics of Texas
• category:Virginia politics --> category:Politics of Virginia

Rename all CalJW 00:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, common usage appears to support these names, see for instance googles for "Pennsylvania politics" vs. "Politics of Pennsylvania". Christopher Parham (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same would probably apply to the national categories, but we have chosen a preferred format and it would be good to see it used consistently. It is no less clear. CalJW 06:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Hiding talk 09:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for Wikonsistancy. -- BD2412 ^talk 18:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename for consistency. (SEWilco 00:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Oppose for consistency and futility. Changing this would make it more inconsistent with the naming tendency for other state subcategories that do not involve discrete things located within the state. See for example Category:Illinois culture, Category:Illinois geography, Category:Illinois history, Category:Illinois media (and these are not exceptions, as the uniform contents of Category:United States media by state, Category:U.S. state histories, Category:United States geography by state, etc. illustrate). What is gained by requiring subnational subcategories to follow the national naming trend? Aside from unnecessary work, of course. Postdlf 05:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Global consistency, and certainty about what names should be used for future categories created for other countries. CalJW 12:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy all. This is close enough to "politics of country" defined as a speedy in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Miscellaneous "of country". -Splash^talk 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all and also rename the other categories by state. Susvolans ⇔ 11:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly oppose. Not usage, not concise, no benefit. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds; Wikipedia, however, is inconsistent. Septentrionalis 01:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is personal abuse, which is not persuasive, and does not promote your inference of intellectual superiority.
• Rename all as per Susvolans Bhoeble 13:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. No argument. siafu 03:41, 10 October 2005 (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.