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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Former colleges and halls of the University of Oxford. --Xdamr^talk 23:29, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former Colleges of the University of Oxford to Category:Former colleges and halls of the University of Oxford

Nominator's rationale: Rename to (1) fix the extra capital letter and (2) expand the title to reflect the fact that not all institutions included within the category were actually designated as colleges. Bencherlite^Talk 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom; most of these were not colleges in fact. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree per nominator. And per my sense of good taste. Such a venerable category should have a long and precise name. :) Debresser (talk) 23:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nom and User:Ninetyone. --Xdamr^talk 23:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:State departments of commerce to Category:State departments of commerce of the United States

Category:State departments of transportation to Category:State departments of transportation of the United States

Category:State departments of agriculture to Category:State departments of agriculture of the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename for accuracy and to match parent category Category:State agencies of the United States. Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 21:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per both arguments of the nominator and wp:bias. Debresser (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment also Category:State education departments in the United States to Category:State departments of education of the United States? ninety:one 21:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response - actually, yes, that would be a good idea. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 22:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename as nominated. There is a consensus that this needs to be renamed to remove the word "by", but there is no consensus on whether to use "Stone-Campbell movement" or "Restoration Movement", so we default to keeping what presently exists, which is "Stone-Campbell movement". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges by affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement to Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Correct blatant and unseemly grammatical error in current name. John Carter (talk) 17:46, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Restoration Movement per the primary usage at Restoration Movement, and lack of naming conflict with Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or any other Restorationist (as separate from Restoration Movement) group. --King of the Arverni (talk) 17:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Stone-Campbell Movement is indeed a redirect to Restoration Movement; and there is Category:Restoration Movement. Perhaps Category:Stone-Campbell movement denominations should be added. Occuli (talk) 18:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename please to Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement per nominator. I created this category with the typo and never saw it. "Restoration Movement" is vague and consantly confused with the quite different Restorationism. If this is renamed with "Restoration Movement" in the name, it will likely be filled with colleges affiliated with various parts of Restorationism. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 20:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I disagree with that line of reasoning. There are separate articles for each, indeed there is no article for the Stone-Campbell Movement, and one can easily add this category to his or her watchlist even if there were an issue. If such confusion was likely, I'd first expect someone to suggest that Restoration Movement be moved over the redirect, but there is no naming conflict here, and I certainly wasn't fooled by the similarities so I wouldn't expect anyone else to be. There is already a Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. --King of the Arverni (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Stone-Campbell movement per nominator and Carlaude:. Debresser (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Universities and colleges affiliated with the Restoration Movement to match the title of the parent article, as described by User:Arverniking. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I tend to find the phrase "Stone-Campbell movement" used more often to describe this than "Restoration Movement", and also agree that "Restoration movement" and the much broader "Restorationism" are much more easily confused, and thus at least to a degree ambiguous, than the more clearly defined "Stone-Campbell movement". John Carter (talk) 15:00, 18 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Keep as part of larger scheme. --Xdamr^talk 23:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in Nicaragua ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is overly narrow. It has had one entry in the past year. Given the small size of the country, it is unlikely that this category will become that useful with notable events or people. I believe it is contrary to WP:OC#SMALL.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As part of a bigger overall scheme of Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents in North America, and the parent to that category too. Lugnuts (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Then incidents in Nicaragua would be covered under it and there isn't really a need for a sub category. BTW, The sole victim listed was on a helicopter that a bomb was placed on. There was no accident and the incident was less related to the aircraft than it was to terrorism. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Lugnuts. Other subcategories of Category:Victims of aviation accidents or incidents by locationare also very small. Luckily! Debresser (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of wider scheme, noting also that this is arguably (unlike most in these cats) the single member's most significant category. Johnbod (talk) 01:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say his martial arts involvement is much more significant. He authored 3 books on the topic and is more known as a martial arts instructor than as a victim of a Nicaraguan aviation incident. Truthfully, I think all the sub-cats should be deleted and just leave it as North American incidents. Most of the sub cats have 2 or less entries and, again, the odds of them becoming that populated are pretty low.Niteshift36 (talk) 04:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Disagree with the odds of them being populated being low. The most recent stats state approx. 130 or so plane crashes each year. If anything, they are likely to be populated as time goes by. It seems there's a plane crash in the news every other week over the last few months. Case and point being the Iran category which expanded today. Lugnuts (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A defining characteristic that is part of a well-defined structure. Alansohn (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename all per nom. --Xdamr^talk 23:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Lower Merion Township, Pennsylvania to Category:Lower Merion Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
• Category:Radnor Township, Pennsylvania to Category:Radnor Township, Delaware County, Pennsylvania
• Category:Upper Dublin Township to Category:Upper Dublin Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: All three categories are eponymous categories for specific townships. When these categories were created, these township articles were named "____ Township, Pennsylvania" (including Upper Dublin), but since that time, consensus at the Pennsylvania wikiproject led to all Pennsylvania townships, including these ones, having the county names attached. Therefore, we need to move these categories to fit their articles. Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, is it really necessary for the county name to be attached if there isn't another township of the same name elsewhere in Pennsylvania? If there was a consensus that the county name should always be present whether it's needed for disambiguation or not, then there really shouldn't have been — but I also can't help but wonder if somebody at some point just misunderstood what the consensus actually was. Bearcat (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all townships nationwide include the county name, and the proposal was essentially to do what was done with townships in other states. Everyone who agreed with the proposal acted on it in the same manner, so it's obvious what was agreed. Nyttend (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree per nominator (Bearcat's question notwithstanding). Debresser (talk) 21:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree cat to match article is the best way per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames I think that the decision to add the county for every Pennsylvania township article regardless of duplication was unhelpful and that the only thing that could have made it worse would have been to add some en dashes and other unprintable characters. However, these are the names for the articles and the category titles should match those of the parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 18:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:People subject to extraordinary rendition by the United States. --Xdamr^talk 18:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Victims of the extraordinary rendition program to unknown

Nominator's rationale: Rename or Delete. Not sure of a target name that can fix the POV issues with the current name. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If kept, rename - to Category:Prisoners and detainees taken under extraordinary rendition. I think that addresses the issues wth the name. No opinion on whether this should be kept. The parent categories need to be looked at too. Otto4711 (talk) 11:19, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - victim - meaning 1 from Merriam-Webster is "one that is acted on and usu. adversely affected by a force or agent"; which seems spot-on, unless extraordinary rendition can be viewed as some sort of all-expenses-paid treat. Occuli (talk) 12:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this sort of context, "victim" inherently carries a connotation of being unfairly targeted for acting-upon. It's not a neutral descriptor. Bearcat (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

to what? Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Bearcat is correct. The word victim is POV and implies that it was unjustified. Not neutral at all. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Otto, or one of those below. present name is 2nd choice. Johnbod (talk) 16:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to remove victims. But why do we need "taken"? Category:Prisoners and detainees under extraordinary rendition is shorter. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Detainees following extraordinary rendition? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

***It's unclear to me what "following" is intended to mean in this context. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Is the US the only country that does this uses extraordinary rendition? If not, then all of the parent categories probably need to have the countries added. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Individuals subject to extraordinary rendition by the United States The use of "victim" in the current title is at best inappropriate. The parent article is Extraordinary rendition by the United States, which defines the practice as "the apprehension and extrajudicial transfer of a person from one state to another". The new title should reflect the title of the parent article and should express the connection between the individuals affected and the program itself in as neutral a term as possible. Category:Subjects of extraordinary rendition by the United States might also be a short option, but the word "subjects" can mean wither "individuals" or "topics", so that may be less clear. I'm sure that tehre are other variations that are viable, but the current name is not the way to go. Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If consensus is against using "prisoners and detainees" then I suggest "people" rather than "individuals". Otto4711 (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• "People" is probably better than "individuals". Alansohn (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Subject to' implies that they are targets or candidates for this and have not been entered into the program. So that option would not seem viable. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but I would prefer Category:People subjected to extraordinary rendition by the United States. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree "subjected" sound POV. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion - 'People detained under extraordinary rendition by the United States' seems to pass the above requirements while avoiding words thought to be POV. 'People granted the privilege of extraordinary rendition by the United States' is perhaps going too far towards the Rumsfeld POV. Occuli (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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