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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:49, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial category with millions of potential members. Not useful for navigation or classification. Delete. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. CalJW 14:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Huh, that makes me trivial twice over. -Splash^talk 02:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete along with its parent Category:People by educational degree and sibling cats. Vsmith 04:12, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator. DV8 2XL 02:20, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I also agree with the the nominator. -- Crevaner 22:18, 27 November 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 17:48, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inherently POV category—infamous according to whom? Also an unhelpful and unencyclopedic category, as "infamous" is too fluid a concept for anyone to expect to find a certain entry listed under it. Why the value judgment (which in turn implies that all lists of people not listed here aren't infamous, like list of fascists), when one could simply list these under much clearer and more specific categories? For example, "list of anti-semites" and "list of white supremacists" would surely fit better under Category:Lists of people by ideology, no? Likewise for Category:Criminals, etc. -Silence 22:04, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nominator. CalJW 14:34, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cool lists, but wikipedia might get sued. Golfcam 15:39, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per nominator, is absolutely "inherently POV." -- Crevaner 22:19, 27 November 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 18:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, upmerge Category:Prime ministers by country to Category:Prime ministers.

Secondly, standardize subcats as Officetitle of Fooland. A majority of the subcategories already follow this format, the article titles follow this format, and the other subcats of Category:Political office-holders follow the precedent of "Officetitle of Fooland" for specific positions with jurisdiction over the entirety of Fooland, and "Office in Fooland" for collections of offices associated with Fooland. Note that prime minister is the generic term for such offices (and thus the "Chancellor of Germany" and "Prime Minister of Canada" are collectively "prime ministers"), so the correct capitalization for the category is indeed Prime ministers, but when referring to a specific office it is convention to capitalize, eg, Prime Minister of Australia. I've included sources for case corrections where possible.

• Category:Canadian Prime Ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of Canada
• Category:Croatian prime ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of Croatia [1]
• Category:Danish Prime Ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of Denmark
• Category:Dutch Prime Ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of the Netherlands
• Category:Egyptian Prime Ministers merge into Category:Prime Ministers of Egypt
• Category:Prime ministers of France → Category:Prime Ministers of France
• Category:German chancellors → Category:Chancellors of Germany
• Category:Prime ministers of Israel → Category:Prime Ministers of Israel [2]
• Category:Italian prime ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of Italy
• Category:Japanese prime ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of Japan [3]
• Category:Prime ministers of Latvia → Category:Prime Ministers of Latvia [4]
• Category:New Zealand Prime Ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of New Zealand
• Category:Prime ministers of Nepal → Category:Prime Ministers of Nepal
• Category:Romanian Prime Ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of Romania
• Category:South African Prime Ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of South Africa
• Category:Swedish Prime Ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of Sweden
• Category:Prime ministers of Togo → Category:Prime Ministers of Togo
• Category:Prime ministers of Turkey → Category:Prime Ministers of Turkey
• Category:British Prime Ministers → Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom

Please and thank you. The Tom 18:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename the subcats, but the primary cat should be Category:Prime Ministers (capitalized), which would be a subcat of Category:Prime ministers, a subcat of Category:Government ministers. Do not upmerge by country into PM. We might have a by era or by government type cats at some point. 132.205.44.134 06:15, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. CalJW 11:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as they are or just replace the m with a capital letter M if you really insist on some meddling STopCat 20:12, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename except for Category:British Prime Ministers as a good number of them were around before the United Kingdom existed. Bhoeble 12:48, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Surely the article Prime Minister of the United Kingdom is a problem, too, then. The Tom 21:28, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Bhoeble is technically correct. Robert Walpole is generally acknowledged to be the first prime minister, serving from 1721. The United Kingdom exists only from 1801. The state prior to this (the union of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland) - which existed at the time of Walpole - is called the Kingdom of Great Britain on Wikipedia. However, the article on this kingdom states it was also known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain. On this basis, therefore, Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom seems a tolerable compromise. If we are going to be really pedantic, we would need three categories: - Category:Prime Ministers of Great Britain; Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I suggest this is unnecessary. For the sake of accuracy, all that is required is to gloss the cat itself with a comment to the effect that it is for prime ministers of any of the above three states (as already happens in the article List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom). Valiantis 13:13, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • What about Category:Prime Ministers of England and successor kingdoms ? 132.205.45.110 19:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely not. Firstly, there has never been a Prime Minister of England. Secondly, Great Britain was the successor kingdom of England & Scotland equally. Valiantis 01:35, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Martin 11:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. GregorB 21:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hiding talk 17:10, 28 November 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 18:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only category of this type, ie a parent category for category:Companies traded on the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores. Untidy, inconsistent and unnecessary. Apart from the subcategory it contains only the article about the exchange, which I have linked from the subcategory in the same way as for the other 20 exchanges, and the article about the stock exchange index, which was already in the subcategory in the usual way. Delete Carina22 17:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep.
  • "it contains only the article about the exchange". No, it also has the articles about its index, about brokerage firms, companies listed and of course the child category of Category:Companies traded on the Bolsa Mexicana de Valores.
  • "Untidy, inconsistent and unnecessary". Not unnecessary, since navigating from Category:Stock exchanges readers can quickly find its index and companies traded on it. As well as navigating from Category:Economy of Mexico. --Vizcarra 00:40, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-standard and pointless. CalJW 11:10, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete/merge A couple of items have been added, but they might as well go in the other category. Osomec 14:47, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep defo a must keep category STopCat 20:21, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. If no category has proven necessary for the NYSE (or any of the other 87 stock exchanges in category:stock exchanges), no category should be necessary for this one either. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I know, we should stop writing articles on these topics, and create categories... because if they haven't been created then we don't really need them. --Vizcarra 00:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is already a wealth of articles about numerous stock exchanges and their indices. Rather than create a new categorization structure specific to this one exchange, it should follow well-established (and well popluated) existing structures. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... applying the Harrison Bergeron principle. The alternative to start a new structure has not been considered. Somebody could have followed my example, but instead the lazy way of "I don't have the time to do the same for other stock markets, so delete yours until then I have the energy to do so" has been chosen. --Vizcarra 18:20, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as proposed. Honbicot 12:35, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it isn't wanted for New York, it isn't needed for Mexico. Many of the brokerages are not even Mexican. Bhoeble 12:50, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not needed? How many articles have been written about it? None of these voters bothered to check. --Vizcarra 01:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep only article about exchange.--Jondel 04:59, 28 November 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 reverse merge --Kbdank71 17:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a duplication. - N (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Carina22 17:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge (speedy per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)). Can leave Category:Music of Bengal as a ((Categoryredirect)) if necessary. -- Rick Block (talk) 22:16, 20 November 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. Martin 11:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest rename as per Astrakhan Khanate - N (talk) 14:18, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Carina22 17:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as proposed. Honbicot 12:38, 22 November 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. Martin 11:21, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy due to lack of sign of further action after I had pointed out that the query as to whether it should be Category:Baseball in Mexico was a misunderstanding. (the parent Category:Mexican baseball should be renamed to that soon.) Rename Category:Mexican baseball teams. CalJW 14:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Carina22 17:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Rick Block (talk) 22:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Arniep 23:16, 25 November 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 17:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category. Only text is "Replaced by Category:American sport shooters" N (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2005

• Delete Carina22 17:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds like part of Category:American murderers. Honbicot 12:41, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arniep 23:16, 25 November 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 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard category. Main article is Philippine landmarks (should probably be moved in line with proposed category name). I don't much like these "landmarks" categories, which cut across the more widely used and important "buildings and structures" categories in an awkward way, but we seem to be stuck with them as the term is established in American English. "Sites" is vague and is not a standard Wikipedia category. The Philippines is clearly in the American English sphere rather than the British English sphere, so we can hardly use "visitor attractions".
Rename category:Landmarks of the Philippines CalJW 06:19, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a tourism site! There are Category:Star Wars locations , Category:Bible places, Category:New Testament places and Category:Torah places. I don't see anything vague with the meaning of place. Buildings and places have totally different meanings. --Jondel 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Carina22 17:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Retain I need a category that means a place, location or site. Remove the Philippine landmarks as the main article. A landmark is a marker. Allow a Landmarks in the Philippines category but allow a categor for significant sites. A reservation park really doesn't serve well as a marker . (1)What is vague about sites (or locations or places)? (2) Please show if sites can not exist as a category despite being non-standard. If you delete these category, I will file a vandalism report.

This is the definition for Landmark. www.dictionary.com:1.A prominent identifying feature of a landscape. 2.A fixed marker, such as a concrete block, that indicates a boundary line. 3.An event marking an important stage of development or a turning point in history. 4.A building or site with historical significance, especially one marked for preservation by a municipal or national government.--Jondel 10:53, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Philippines does not "need" anything that any other country doesn't need, and you do not own the coverage of the Philippines. You cannot "file a vandalism report" if this is deleted in accordance with due process! CalJW 11:14, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. It is not for you to determine that something is not needed if there is at least one vote. I will propose a separate vote for sites or P. locations or P. places. Keep a Landmark, keep a location/site/place category. There is a Category:Star Wars locations. Not that the Philippines is a fictional movie but location is not an ambiguous concept.--Jondel 02:52, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Could mean anything. I thought it would be for websites at first. Osomec 14:48, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  To Category:Philippine locations then? --Jondel 09:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as Philippine sites and let there be diversity in Wikipedia entries and category names STopCat 20:06, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  So as not to confuse with websites, I will start a vote for renaming to Philippine locations. --Jondel 09:59, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. If this is for tourism sites, it needs a name that at least hints at that. Honbicot 12:40, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Not all are tourism sites. wikipedia is not travel guide! Rename to locations or places.--Jondel 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed (though it could be deleted as wikipedia is not a travel guide). Bhoeble 12:54, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  To Philippine locations or places?--Jondel 06:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename for consistency. Jondel, please stop repeating yourself, we get your point. Radiant_>|< 10:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This cat implies important places for many reasons. Hence, it can not be moved to landmarks, coz landmarks are important specifically as markers. Landmarks cat should be a subcat of sites. ;) --Noypi380 12:49, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wrong. Pure and simply wrong. I tear my hair out that people are making votes based simply on misunderstandings of English words. CalJW 11:55, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Worry not, for I do have an open mind. Pls do explain then the following definitions from hyperdictionary.com, for I "misunderstand". Site - the piece of land on which something is located, Landmark - a mark showing the boundary of a piece of land' ;) --Noypi380 15:05, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is not the only meaning of landmark. It is the oldest and now the least important meaning. Landmark also has a broader meaning, which is now the main meaning in American English. Look at our own article landmark, which makes things clear and at Category:landmarks of the United States. "Landmarks of X" at least has some sort of meaning as a category. "Site" is just useless, because every place in category:buildings and structures in the Philippines and Category:geography of the Philippines is a site. It is a duplicate of these and if retained would need to be populated with all of the subcategories of those two categories. This is why not one other country has a "sites" category! This is not in the slightest an attack on the Philippines. I am trying my hardest to make the Philippines category as good as those for other countries. All Americans will understand the broader meaning of landmarks perfectly, and it is clearer to everyone else than "site", which is one of the vaguest words in the English language. Jondel's idea that the term "site" achieves his goal is simply completely mistaken - he wants the category to be used for specific things, but the term includes any number of things that are not within the range he has in mind. Please reconsider your vote. CalJW 20:56, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have proven these otherwise. Everyone one is invited to see User_talk:Noypi380#Category:Philippine_sites --Noypi380 04:43, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your comments are a repitition of the same misunderstandings. CalJW 18:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hahaha! Check again! :) :) :) --Noypi380 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Landmarks of the Philippines My closet is a "site" so it's a useless category name. Golfcam 15:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Philippine locations. Category:Landmarks of the Philippines Arniep 23:19, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Landmarks of the Philippines. "Sites" is too generic to be meaningful, "landmarks" is not; if there are entries in the category that aren't landmarks, remove them and put them in their proper place. Consistency is not an evil thing; voting to keep something because it's inconsistent doesn't do anyone any good. The only time when consistency should be opposed is when being inconsistent directly and clearly benefits the readers and the articles in general, and in this case the opposite is true, and being inconsistent can only cause confusion as readers wonder why one category is named one way, and another is named another way. There's room for variety in the specific content of various articles, but to be inconsistent in the very names of our articles, categories, and lists is blatantly unencyclopedic: what would you say of Britannica if it had "Landmarks of the United States" on one page, and "Philippine landmarks" (rather than "Landmarks of the Philippinse") on the next? Inconsistency is only something to be preserved when it actually improves the articles, not just for the hell of it. -Silence 21:10, 26 November 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 17:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awkward English, vague, non-standard and impossible to categorise in the international category system. I have moved the 5 articles to Category:Shopping malls in the Philippines and Category:Retailing in the Philippines. CalJW 06:07, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator Carina22 17:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Osomec 14:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - N (talk) 16:19, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Arniep 23:21, 25 November 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 17:29, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category CG janitor 04:42, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Carina22 17:51, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed - N (talk) 16:18, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Just a mistake I reckon. Golfcam 15:38, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Arniep 23:22, 25 November 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:30, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate category. tregoweth 00:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move all articles --Sheynhertz_געשׁ״ך 07:02, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Can it be speedied, it's basically a typo? Hiding talk 16:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed. Osomec 14:49, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as proposed. - N (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Arniep 23:22, 25 November 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.