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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:115th United States Congress ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete as (very) premature. The 115th Congress will begin in 2017. Pichpich (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. If the article had any real information I might have been inclined to keep it. But since the article has no material and is so far in the future, deletion seems to be the better alternative. Creation can happen when we have some real material about the subject. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so we shouldn't have anything more to populate this category with. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. United States Senate election in Ohio, 2012 and other senatorial elections for this year belong in the category, because the terms of senators elected in this year's elections will be included in the 115th Congress. We can put 33 articles in this category. Nyttend (talk) 00:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My wording isn't clear. If you win a senatorial election this November, either you will sit in the 115th Congress, or someone will be appointed in your place to sit in the 115th Congress. Someone will sit in the 115th Congress as a result of this year's senatorial election in Ohio, and the same is true of the 32 other senatorial elections this year. Nyttend (talk) 00:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I still don't understand why that makes the category worth keeping. Surely nobody will use it to find the article on the upcoming Ohio election. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we have no way to be sure the United States will still exist in 2017. I will not be surprised if it does, but to assume it does is a bit much. On the Ohio election, there are many scenatrios short of the US collapsing that will mean the senator in the 115th congress will not be the one elected in 2012. Thus there is too much assumption of unknown future events involved in creating this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the elections thing: if you'd read my comment, you would have seen that I agree that the person elected will potentially not sit there. Therefore, it will not be appropriate to add this category to the winners of this year's senatorial elections until the 115th Congress convenes. However, each election is being held to choose someone to sit in that Congress, so the election articles themselves should go in this category. Moreover, we have no way to be sure that the Olympic Games will be held in 2020, but policy says that it's an acceptable topic. Nyttend (talk) 04:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nyttend's Ohio argument. JHS_nl (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Articles on this and the 114th congress are grossly premature. Senators elected at United States Senate election in Ohio, 2012 will sit in them (if they live that long and do not resign), but this is a case of WP:CRYSTAL. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Why? As I said above, the election and the elected should be treated differently: it may be that neither Sherrod Brown nor any of his opponents sits in the 115th Congress, but the term of office will be included in the 115th Congress. Either someone on my ballot will sit in that Congress, or that person's inability or unwillingness to sit in that Congress will provoke a vacancy-filling process that's directly and closely related to that Congress. If this were the 116th Congress, the situation would be completely different, as all of the elections to fill the 116th Congress are in the comparatively remote future and thus unsuitable article topics, but the presence of appropriate and relevant articles makes this a valid category. Nyttend (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I see this as premature, and not particularly needed. The article about the Ohio election could only arguably belong in the category, but even if it is legitimately placed in it, this category isn't yet particularly helpful for navigation in finding that article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, as I said above, there are more than thirty articles of that sort that could belong in the category. Nyttend (talk) 02:43, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment are there "more than 30 articles of that sort" or are there "potentially more than 30 articles"? Also is it standard to put seneate election articles in 3 congress categories?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Important note A study through various senate election categories shows that they are never placed in the categories for specific congresses. This is not a standard placement proceedure. There is no precedent for placing the election categories the way Nyttend is suggesting we should do, it goes against precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 12 April 2012 (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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Nepalese entrepreneurs to Category:Nepalese businesspeople

Nominator's rationale: Speedy merge All similar categories have been merged and Category:Entrepreneurs is in fact kept as a redirect to Category:Businesspeople. Pichpich (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Question If you want a speedy merge, why didn't you go to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy? Nyttend (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because technically, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy only allows speedy renaming. Pichpich (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge there is no neautral way to distinguish these to categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge per C2C - there's been 'renames by merge' at CFDS before, no reason to drag this out longer as it's a clear-cut case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:19, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• support merge. No way to distinguish. --KarlB (talk) 04:36, 14 April 2012 (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: UpMerge - No prejudice against re-creation should consensus of a future RfC agree to create such a categorisation scheme for regional parts of Asia (such as "Southeast Asia"). - jc37 21:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Health in Southeast Asia to Category:Health in Asia

Nominator's rationale: I don't see the value of having a separate sub-regional category for SE Asia, especially if we don't have sub-regional cats for the other parts of Asia, per United_Nations_geoscheme (which would imply the following categories: Central Asia, Eastern Asia, Southern Asia, South-Eastern Asia, Western Asia). --KarlB (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment: When I did some re-classification in this tree recently, I decided to keep the existing 'Central America' and 'Caribbean' cats because often those are considered somewhat separate from North America, and those regional definitions are well supported; but dividing up Asia into several chunks, and then deciding whether we should do the same for Africa/etc, made me think - forget it, lets just delete SE Asia and things will be mostly consistent. I also admit that the easy availability of templates for 'North America', 'Central America', 'Caribbean' etc (and the unavailability of those same templates for 'Western Asia' for example) and the fact that almost all of the countries had a 'Health in Asia' template/set of links at the bottom made me think a single cat for Asia would suffice. I welcome your comments. I'd also ask that you consider whether any of the other country divisions in the UN geoscheme are very well known. I for one could not name all of the countries in Southern Europe per the UN scheme, nor the countries in Western Asia - but Caribbean and Central america are pretty easy to sort. In any case, I wouldn't oppose getting rid of those cats as well, and merging central america and caribbean up to north america for consistency's sake.--KarlB (talk) 03:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep South Asia, East Asia, Southeast Asia are very well known, and East Asia and SE Asia are easy to sort out. So, if you consider that Caribbean and Central America are easy to sort and relatively well defined, then so are these three Asian areas, and North Asia as well (but that's just Russia). 70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment illustrating my point. there is no such thing as north asia in the UN geoscheme... --KarlB (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then you'll be nominating Central American and Caribbean soon as well for deletion? 70.24.248.211 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment categories for South Asia and East Asia should be created. It'd make navigating the categories easier. 70.24.248.211 (talk) 08:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - (1) please keep rational concise, not discursive - it is hard for readers to know what you are up to - (2) wikiproject southeastasia exists albeit dormant - there are good reasons to have lower level parts of the asia templates and categories separated away from the vast asia category - the templates and categories are unweildy SatuSuro 08:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - The destination category is not so large that an intermediate level is needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I believe it will be possible for an editor who takes time to understand the UN Geoscheme to separate the countries according to sub-region. However, browsing this tree Category:Categories_by_continent indicates it is uncommon to have sub-regional categorizations. Thus it is not normally considered too burdensome to have all of the Asian countries together (there are only 50 or so). I also pointed out previously that 'Western Asia' is relatively unknown as a categorization, but if we create SE Asia, we have to create Western Asia as well. In addition, there is the question of diffusing and non-diffusing categories - already I had to spend several hours correcting links to make sure all of the 'health in x' articles were classified in the right continent - much less the right sub-region, and it is quite possible that people will continue to classify articles/etc in the wrong place. If we only have continent-level categories, the chance that this tree gets out of date (as several in Category:Categories_by_continent are...) is greatly lessened IMHO. --KarlB (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as nominated. I considered whether it should be kept as a sub-cat of Category:Southeast Asia but, unlike the other SE Asian categories, this contains only national sub-cats and no articles of cross-border significance. There is no need and no particular benefit for all by-country categories to have intermediate sub-regional categories, and Health is one where I do not see the benefit. – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:20, 12 April 2012 (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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shake It Up: Live 2 Dance ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. An article for an album is already going to have links to all of its songs that have articles. There is no need to categorize by album title. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The category serves no useful purpose in this case. Pichpich (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2012 (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: nomination withdrawn (self-close by nominator). The grounds for deletion no longer exist, because the category is now adequately populated. There are no remaining votes to delete, so a self-closure is permissible. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Journalists imprisoned for refusing to reveal sources ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Back in mid-February, I nominated Category:Arrests of journalists for deletion. The discussion was relisted at CfD March 3, and finally closed on 14 March as "No consensus to delete. Consensus to rename to Category:Journalists imprisoned for refusing to reveal sources & purge; revisit if necessary".

It was revisited quite quickly, because most of those in the renamed category had not been arrested for refusing to reveal sources, and Khazar2 (talk · contribs) purged the category. As explained in this thread at WP:CFD/W, the result is that there is only one article in the category, viz. Judith Miller (journalist).

A 1-article category is no use for navigation. Unless someone can demonstrate that this category is capable of meaningful expansion, then it should be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Categories are for navigation; if there's only one likely entry, a category is useless. Nyttend (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Populate and Keep I brought it up to 8 articles without much effort. Probably more out there. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is far to specialized of a category to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The claim that there is only one journalist who's ever been imprisoned for refusing to reveal sources strains one's credibility. I haven't time to check them all at the moment, but those I've looked at so far appear to be correct. --NSH001 (talk) 07:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Now much better populated. The previous category included journalists imprisoned (usually by less democratic regimes) for publishing information that was true but unpallatable to the regime: we may need a category for that, if we can achieve one without POV issues. Journalists can also be arrested for crimes - theft, murder, dangerous driving, etc - but I dount we need a category for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the work done by RevelationDirect; the topic is appropriate, and since we know that there are enough articles, deleting this would not be helpful. Nyttend (talk) 02:54, 12 April 2012 (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. There's a trend emerging in CFDs that matching the main article name takes precedent over WP:RETAIN. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Archaeological artefacts to Category:Archaeological artifacts

Nominator's rationale: Consistency. I understand that we don't generally change content from US spelling to UK spelling or vice versa. However, the article about this topic is Artifact (archaeology), and Artefact (archaeology) is a redirect to it. There's no good reason to have the article and the category using different spellings, and because categories are supposed to help us use the articles and not vice versa, it's better to rename the category than to rename the article. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Something I'm with you. I'm just as open to renaming the article as the cat though. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Besides what I already said, I think the article should stay at its present form instead of the category for two more reasons: (1) Moving an article can be much more disruptive than a category, since we virtually never link to categories in text, while relatively important articles get tons of links, so a lot more people would be surprised by moving the article. (2) We've had an article at this title since 2004, while we've had a category at this title since 2005. WP:RETAIN says that we should go with the usage given in the oldest established usage when we're deciding what dialect of English to use in an article; it doesn't address category/article issues like this discussion does, but the underlying principle I believe is helpful here. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename something -- There is a great deal more archaeology in the old world than in the new world. I would suggest that this is a good reason for using British orthography. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• There's also a great deal more humans, dihydrogen monoxide, sunlight, and just about everything else in the Old World, but our relevant language policy views general topics such as this as being neutral in varieties of English. Nyttend (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom to match article. The article name should be given precedence, especially since it is older. LeSnail (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. I agree in principle with the "rename something" logic, because in theory the solution could also be to keep the categ name and rename the article ... but per Nyttend's explanation above, the article takes precedence in this case. However, re-create Category:Archaeological artefacts as a redirect. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:25, 15 April 2012 (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: no consensus. This current category name is the product of a speedy renaming, which proceeded on the basis of "bringing a category into line with established naming conventions", even though there were 3 other exceptions. Since there was a full discussion which reached was no consensus on whether to rename those 3 other exceptions, they have been retained. I will therefore treat this discussion as a contested speedy renaming for which consensus was found not at full discussion, and restore the status quo ante bellum by reversing the speedy renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Can-Am teams to Category:Can-Am entrants

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose reversion of recent speedy rename, on the basis that the category contains articles about individuals as well as teams. See also related discussions here and here. DH85868993 (talk) 13:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, and split off articles about individuals to Category:Can-Am people, as the parent category is Category:Auto racing teams by series. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:SUBCAT allows for a subcategory to contains some articles which would not be suitable for inclusion in the parent category. In addition, I believe that moving the individuals to Category:Can-Am people would result in a loss of information: in Category:Can-Am entrants, their role in the sport (i.e. entrants) is clear. If they were moved to Category:Can-Am people, their role is unclear - are they entrants? officials? mechanics? car designers? etc. DH85868993 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To expand on my original rationale: I believe the category should not have been speedily renamed (from Category:Can-Am entrants to Category:Can-Am teams) in the first place. The rationale given for the speedy renaming was "C2C: Matching rest of Category:Auto racing teams by series." But there are three other subcategories of Category:Auto racing teams by series of the form "xxx entrants", and a recent proposal to rename those categories to "xxx teams" was unsuccessful. DH85868993 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2012 (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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Army Physical Training Corps soldiers to Category:Royal Army Physical Training Corps soldiers

Nominator's rationale: Per the change of title to include the Royal prefix by HM the Queen in 2010 (see Royal Army Physical Training Corps), it seems logical that the category name should be changed to suit this. Acather96 (talk) 09:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the Queen has spoken. ;) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 10 April 2012 (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: Speedy close - Let's hold off on CfD noms of PRoC/China and RoC/Taiwan until things are sorted out (per the ongoing consensual discussions) and the the dust has settled a bit more. - jc37 22:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Nuclear program of the People's Republic of China to Category:Nuclear program of China

Nominator's rationale: There are four categories of country-specific nuclear programmes (including one on Nazi Germany), and this is the only one that uses the long-form name of the country. There's no reason to have such a long category name when the shortform works just fine. CMD (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC) CMD (talk) 07:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with the renaming, so long as "China" is the correct name. I think I put PRC instead of China because of the whole Taiwan issue, but other editors would know better than I which is correct. Publicus 14:31, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The PRC page was recently moved to China, and the ROC page was (more) recently moved to Taiwan. Categories and article titles are currently being looked at with regards to that. CMD (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The words 'China' or 'Chinese' in the category namespace are reserved to the region or formerly undivided country, e.g. Category:History of China, Category:Military of China, Category:Chinese culture, Category:Chinese cuisine. For categories specific to the People's Republic, 'People's Republic of China' is used. Jeffrey (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: I just want to point out that Jeffrey's statement that "The words 'China' or 'Chinese' in the category namespace are reserved to the region or formerly undivided country" is an opinion, not a statement of wiki policy. In practice, the word 'in China' has been used in thousands of categories, to describe in many cases topics which concern the present day country whose full name is the People's Republic of China. categories "in China" (3039 results); categories "in People's Republic of China" (676 results). My personal opinion is, it is not worth the time and drama to go and rename thousands of categories. Instead, my approach has been, for those categories where there exists *both* a "in China" and "in the People's republic of China" and the articles largely overlap, to propose a merging, solely to avoid confusion and miscategorization. IMHO I don't think it's worth a major rename on every single article and category at this point. What we should avoid, in most cases, is having two categories - unless there is a clear and defensible reason. Take this for example: Category:Rail_infrastructure_in_China - if you explore this topic, you will notice some cats above are 'china', some below are PRC, and vice versa - there is no consistency, and personally I don't think its worth the time to sort it all out. Let's start by just fixing the glaring issues, whereby there are two cats which largely overlap and merge those. On this particular nomination, I am neutral. --KarlB (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It was exactly because of the years-long disputes that the distinction wasn't strictly observed. But we can tidy them easily with bots and categoryredirects. Laziness isn't an excuse to leave them messy. Jeffrey (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jeffrey's statement has no basis in anything other than their own viewpoint, and they give no reason for having an unnecessarily long category name. There is differently less importance to sort this than there is to sort out duplicate categories, but I think that it is still worth moving for concision. Categories pile up at the bottom of articles, and the less clutter the better. CMD (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The renaming of the China articles was limited to a specific set of articles rather than being across the board which may be the source of Jeffrey's analysis. I just think we'll need to proceed thoughtfully is elsewhere there is both PRC and ROC content. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. The country article is at 'China' and the topic doesn't deal specifically with politics that would necessitate using PRC. – NULL ‹talk›
  ‹edits› 20:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as following China=PRC naming convention. If the Republic of China were to reactivate their nuclear program, the naming may need revisiting. Currently all contact is PRC though. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the fact that the ROC has had a nucelar program means that the rename opens up misuse of the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The ROCs nuclear programme only began after it was restricted to its current territory, and around the time it was kicked out of the UN. I doubt it is ever described as a nuclear programme of China. CMD (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Hold on and Procedural close -- We have recently decided to rename categories, etc, relating to "Republic of China" as Taiwan, but this requires pre-1949 material concerning the mainland to be split out. Until those splits are completed, it is important that PRC articles should continue to use that name. I also suppoort John Pack Lambert's reason for opposing: China is ambiguous, referring to the now-unrecognised RoC and PRC. We can in time probably resolve that issue, but certainly there should be no renames for PRC articles until we do. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• When and where was it decided? Jeffrey (talk) 17:09, 10 April 2012 (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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:International buses to Category:Navistar International buses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name is ambiguous. Make the fact that these are buses manufactured by a company and not for ones that travel across boarders clearer. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to clarify purpose, and to match parent Category:Navistar International. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious rename. Before reading the rationale, I couldn't understand why the name of a company should be prefixed to a category for buses that travel across borders. Nyttend (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename the current name does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:13, 11 April 2012 (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: no consensus. Editors have identified a difficulty in the categorisation of cars by country. It is now not uncommon for a company based in country A to manufacture a model in countries B and C, and sell it countries D to Z. A discussion has been opened at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Request_comment_on_category_renames.2Fcleanup. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Cars of the United States to Category:Cars manufactured in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consider this a test nomination following the nomination yesterday about a merge of motor vehicles into this one. If this passes, then additional categories will need to be nominated. Category:Motor vehicles manufactured in the United States is the logical parent category for cars, buses, trucks, boats and whatnot. So the children categories should follow the naming in a logical parent. What exactly is meant by Category:Cars of the United States? Are these government owned cars or official cars or what? Vegaswikian (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The intent here seems to be to impart a nationality on a car based on the country where its manufacturer is based, not based on the physical place of manufacture. Category:Cars manufactured in Foo would not be suitable, as the Honda Accord is assembled at a plant in Ohio, but is not an "American car" by this definition. It can be argued that the Accord made in Marysville is the American variant of a car also produced in Sayama, Swindon, and Guangzhou; however, the assumption cannot be made generally, as a plant will usually make cars for export as well as the domestic market. Note that the parent Category:Motor vehicles manufactured in the United States does include the Accord.- choster (talk) 12:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• comment: The reason 'of' was chosen, rather than 'manufactured in', was the subject of debate already on the wikiproject automotive. Given the negative responses to my original CfD, which was just really intended to bring a few aberrant categories in line with the current standard in that tree, I suggest that we now bring a broader discussion to the wikiproject automotive board about a broader category reorganization. Thus I would suggest that this particular nomination be put on hold until a broader discussion can be had with those folks, especially re: the terms automobile, motor vehicle, car, etc, and then we will bring the results back here. --KarlB (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Possible Alternate Renames My understanding is that "made in" or "manufactured in" have minimum US content requirements where "assembled in" does not. That being said, the parent category to this is Category:Motor vehicles manufactured in the United States which I don't get. I'm thinking something like Category:Cars sold under American nameplates or Category:Motor vehicles assembled in the United States might better capture what these are trying to get at. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Aren't there some models for which production is split among plants in multiple countries? Looking at the nomination, I wanted to support, but I was swayed by Choster's remarks about sites such as East Liberty and Marysville. For the sake of context for my question — my family had a car some years ago that (1) was made in Mexico and (2) was of the same exact model as many that were made in Brazil. Aren't there some models that would be produced in American plants and also produced at plants in other countries? Nyttend (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply Sure. Just off the top of my head, the Toyota Corolla and Ford Focus are both globally market vehicles made all over the place. I'm sure there are many other examples. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose I've started a broader discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles, I would like to suggest we put this particular nom on hold and move the discussion to the automobile project - the problems in this category tree go deeper than just this rename. Also FYI, no, these are not government official cars - i believe they are just cars that produced in and sold in the united states - see the rest of the category tree. --KarlB (talk) 03:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Cars of American motor vehicle manufacturers (or something similar) per Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers of the United States. This seems to be more about the manufacturer than an individual manufacturing plant. Also suggesting something similar for the parent (which is nominated here). - jc37 19:04, 12 April 2012 (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: No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Illegal immigrants to the United States to Category:Undocumented immigrants to the United States
• Nominator's rationale the issue is really that the people so immigrating lack the proper legal documentation. The term "illegal" is needlessly pejorative.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Illegal immigration, Category:Illegal immigrants, Category:Illegal immigrants to Mexico‎, Category:Illegal immigration and many others. This is the standard term. Any proposed move should be initiated at the talk page for Illegal immigration. LeSnail (talk) 04:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per the other page titles that Lesnail cites. If you don't have the legal documentation, you're illegal by definition. Nyttend (talk) 15:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In the US, "illegal immigrants" is used by those favoring harsher border security and increased deportation, "undocumented worker" by those favoring paths to citizenship. Both terms have become equally pointed. I don't see an option that appears NPOV. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I am unfamiliar with the US systerm on this, but a person will be illegal if he lacks the proper documents. He may well have documents (and so not be "undocumented"). He might have a foreign passport with no visa; a foreign passport with an expired visa, or be working when he has a visitor's visa that prohibits work. Such people are documented, but still illegal. In UK, there is a problem of people who get in and then destroy any documetns they have to preovent their removal. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as Peterkingiron points out, 'undocumented' =/= 'illegal'; one could probably make a convincing case, in fact, that 'undocumented' is the more POV-pushing term than "illegal", as the latter is (in an ideal world, at least!) cut and dried (either you're in compliance with the law, or you're not), while 'undocumented' opens up a rainbow's worth of shades of grey. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if there is a difference in US usages other than expression of a point of view, it is actually the opposite of what people are implying. Undocumented means someone lacks all the documents to work legally in the United States. "Illegal immigrants" is a less clearly defined term, although often used as a synonym for undocumented, which comes closer to reflecting the state of the law. Someone who overstays their visa is clearly an undocumented immigrant, whether they are an "illegal immigrant" is less clear, because they did initially come to the country by legal means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2012 (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:St. Mary's University, Texas alumni. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:St. Mary's University alumni to Category:St. Mary's University, Texas alumni
• Nominator's rationale the new category will match the article which is St. Mary's University, Texas and the parent category Category:St. Mary's University, Texas. It will also avoid confusion with the other places under Saint Mary's University.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match head article and disambiguate from from other Saint Mary's Universitys. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Move the contents to the proposed title. Blank the current category page and put on something such as Commons:Template:Disambig, to prevent people from using this category in the future. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per C2B (disambiguating) and C2C (parent cat is Category:St Mary's University, Texas). (And the awkward appearance of "St Mary's University, Texas alumni" is yet another case for "people educated at...", but that's another CfD!) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:St. Mary's University (Texas) alumni. This seems to be the common method in Category:Alumni by university or college in Texas to avoid the awkward "Texas alumni", eg Category:University of St. Thomas (Texas) alumni. Cjc13 (talk) 10:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do not have a preferance for how to designate that this university is the one in Texas. I chose the proposed form because this is the form used in the article on the university. If Cjc13 thinks a different form is preferable he should suggest the change on the article name. For now we should follow the form of the article name. Loyola University Chicago proves that there is no standard method of distinguishing multiple universities with the same name. A question I do not know is if this university here is refered to by a specific name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to match article and other related categories. Oculi (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2012 (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.