< December 15	December 17 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 05:53, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:People from Cape Cod, Massachusetts into Category:People from Barnstable County, Massachusetts

An anon incorrectly listed this with the article templates. This text is copy-pasted from Category talk:People from Cape Cod, Massachusetts

The category People from Cape Cod, Massachusetts should be merged into People from Barnstable County, Massachusetts as the two area are coextensive. That is, Barnstable County, Massachusetts, consists of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and no other areas. Also, in keeping with precedent, the county, rather than the geographical location, should be retained, categories such as these are maintained for cities, counties, states, and countries. The two categories contain many of the same pages, but some are maintained only in each category. Therefore, a merger, rather than a deletion, should be enacted.

I'm adding that the merge is better in this direction because People from Barnstable County, Massachusetts is older.

• No vote: procedural listing. Circeus 23:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge as the anon suggested. Cape Cod and Barnstable County are the same thing and WP usually categorizes people by county. OBriain 07:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• merge per nom. FEastman 02:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 05:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:Backing vocalists, or Delete. Is this really a separate profession? I expect all singers do this from time to time. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - per the parent article, one could list all four of the Beatles in this cat and that seems a bit absurd. Distribute the population out to Category:Session musicians or a child as appropriate or leave it off. Otto4711 03:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• delete per nom. FEastman 02:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 23:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Episcopacy in Catholicism into Category:Episcopacy in Roman Catholicism

• Merge - Category:Episcopacy in Catholicism was created in June 2005. Today, Category:Episcopacy in Roman Catholicism was created and appears to duplicate some of the same material. For example, Category:Roman Catholic dioceses appears in both categories. Since both categories appear to focus mostly (if not entirely) on Roman Catholicism, I therefore recommend merging "Episcopacy in Catholicism" into "Episcopacy in Roman Catholicism". Dr. Submillimeter 22:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom, since it appears that "Roman Catholic" (rather than "Catholic") is the term normally used for such categories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Episcopacy in Catholicism "Roman Catholicism" is a popular but incorrect name for the church. It is properly called Catholicism. The term "Roman Catholic" emerged in the English language as a derrogatory term, despite its frequent use elsewise today. It is also not universal in its application, while simply "Catholic" is. 67.101.243.74 01:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Many other categories and articles in Wikipedia use the phrase "Roman Catholic". Are these articles problematic as well? Do the majority of Wikipedia users agree with this viewpoint? Dr. Submillimeter 08:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Comment This question is an old one, and very hard to resolve. There was a lengthy discussion on it at Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Archive7, where no consensus was reached; the straw poll split down the middle. I really don't thimk that CFD is the place to reopen such a big can of worms wrt to one particular category. If someone wants to propose an en bloc renaming of all the categories with "Roman Catholic" in their title, that would be a more appropriate way to proceed, though I suggest that there should be a preliminary discussion first somewhere in category talk space, to at least clarify the issues. But please, not here. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Comment - Based on BrownHairedGirl's comment, I suggest using the phrase "Roman Catholic" to reflect the current name of the parent article, but a note should be left in the category's talk page to move the category to a name without the word "Roman" when and if the parent artcile's name is changed. A redirect from one category to the other should also be added. Dr. Submillimeter 11:58, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Note the root category for articles on the (Roman) Catholic Church is Category:Roman Catholic Church. I suggest that Category talk:Roman Catholic Church would be the appropriate place for any discussion on a change of category naming convention from "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic", so Dr Submilliter's useful suggestion of a note should probably point there. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 12:08, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge to Episcopacy in Catholicism (per anon) Regardless of what is the norm on WP, both are represented and no point in favoring a potential problem naming convention. OBriain 07:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Episcopacy in Roman Catholicism Leaving aside the fact that people are proposing changing a category that has no notice on it, I think it's the worst of all worlds when relevant categories and articles use names different from the main article. I'd support Episcopacy in Catholicism only if all the other articles and categories are going that way. Get a clear consensus on this matter to move the lot, but until then I think we have to stick with the current main article title. Timrollpickering 23:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• merge as episcopacy in Catholicism because there are also eastern branches of the Catholic church like the uniates who are part of the Catholic church but aren't Roman at all. FEastman 02:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge to Episcopacy in Roman Catholicism. The Roman Catholic vs Catholic naming issue has been discussed and rediscussed multiple times, and the articles and categories now use Roman Catholic Church, and there's no reason why this category should be different. Issues like this shouldn't need to be redebated every time some subcategory comes up. Mairi 04:48, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete all. Timrollpickering 05:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete, I hereby propose a univeral ban on All current, former, and future profession by continent categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:44, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete - Such categories are excessive. Also, please nominate the categories for the individual continents. Dr. Submillimeter 22:50, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Additional nominations per request. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:13, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of North America
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of South America
  • Category:Methodist bishops of Latin America
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of Europe
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of Africa
  • Category:United Methodist bishops of Asia
  • Category:Methodist bishops of Asia
• Delete per nom, Dr Submillimeter, and many similar discussions. And yes, please put up the subcategories for the individual continents, preferably all in one vote. — coelacan talk — 22:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all per nom, per Dr Submillimeter and prev discussions on categorisation by continent. Support ban on profession by continent categories --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 23:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, but create Category:United Methodist bishops by country, which is the proper scheme. Circeus 23:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment the by-country categories are all underpopulated (one article each) and have been nominated for deletion (see CFD 2006 Dec 17#Category:Methodist bishops of Japan). I suggest that a decision on creating Category:United Methodist bishops by country should await the outcome of that CFD. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 10:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • will someone please explain why these one-article cats get deleted, while hundreds of other underpopulated cats do not?!? I detect bias on the part of certain editors! Pastorwayne 12:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete them all, and I'd likely support a ban in general on such categories. I'm not sure by country is necessarily a good idea, as some episcopal areas cover multiple countries, but that's a discussion for elsewhere. Mairi 03:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• delete all per nom. FEastman 02:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:Electrical engineering academics. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nom, to match other academics in fields related to professions, such as Category:Education academics, Category:Journalism academics, Category:Legal academics, Category:Religion academics and Category:Medical academics. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Electrical engineering academics --LQ 03:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws (i.e. per revised nom) as this appears to have the greatest support given the consensus for change. David Kernow (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality to Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws

• Rename. I suppose it doesn't matter so much whether we rename it or not. The proposed name is okay, and maybe will allow for some clarification. I think using the phrase 'homophobic laws' instead of 'anti-homosexuality laws' might be more appropriate, as it would include people who have faced legal hardships and were trans or bi. On the whole, though, I'm okay with either. Wandering Star 02:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC) <<< this is not the nomination rationale, the user just inserted it at the top. (Coelacan)Reply[reply]

• Rename. Some people who were convicted under anti-homosexuality laws in the past were deprived of property or forced to take hormones, though not imprisoned or executed (Alan Turing was given the choice between imprisonment and hormones, for example.) The renaming would cover all convictions, including those settled by plea bargain or other means. — coelacan talk — 22:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC) <<< this is the nomination rationale. (Coelacan)Reply[reply]

My preference for a new name, if we are going to rename this category, is Category:People persecuted for their homosexuality. "Persecuted" is the better option, simply because it is more inclusive. For instance, Matthew Shepard would not fall under the "convicted" category, but would fall under "persecuted". Gwen Araujo and Brandon Teena are more examples. In short, where are you going to put all the victims of homophobia who were not State victims? Is their persecution less notable just because it was done on a personal level and not a governmental one? Jeffpw 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Jeffpw. Matthew was neither "imprisoned" nor "executed", he was murdered (so he was never in this category). The former terms are legalisms, and that's what this category deals with. Matthew is in Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people, of which Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality is already a subcategory. Gwen Araujo and Brandon Teena are already in Category:Hate crimes against LGBT people too, so they're properly categorized. Keep in mind that state-sponsered (or other legalistic systems) persecution is a specific and widespread phenomenon, so it's useful to keep these two categories separate. — coelacan talk — 22:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How about Category:Victims of legal or religious persecution of homosexuality? Haiduc 23:07, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This category is currently fairly objective, and if we rename it (as seems reasonable), I'd like to rename it to something equally objective — both in classification (I'd like it to be fairly objective to determine whether someone falls into the category) and in tone ("victims" and "persecution" are both loaded terms, and even if they could be justified, I just don't think it's worth dealing with). So, my vote, of the current options, is for Category:People convicted under anti-homosexuality laws. —Ruakh_TALK 23:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree with User:Ruakh: While persecution is reasonably accurate, it will certainly cause complaints about POV. "Prosecuted" speaks to the legal nature and can include religious prosecution/persecution in states with religious powers. (Prosecuted also speaks to things that are not convictions, like arrests/sweeps as in Egypt; or trials that don't lead to conviction.) Also, "homosexuality" speaks to status or identity; some laws are about status/identity (don't ask don't tell) and some are about actions (most sodomy statutes). (And some people don't like the term "victims" for various reasons.) So, what about Category:People prosecuted for same-sex sexuality ? --LQ 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be best to have a category that includes bisexuals, which "People prosecuted for same-sex sexuality" doesn't. I think "Category:People convicted under anti-homosexuality laws" is the best name for the intentions of this category. Koweja 23:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question: I am fairly well convinved by Koweja that "People ... under anti-homosexuality laws" is the fairest route; however, is there more support for prosecuted or convicted? I think LQ makes a decent case for "prosecuted" (prosecution itself can be used as a tool even when conviction is known to be unlikely) and I'm willing to change the nomination, but I'll go with whatever consensus emerges. — coelacan talk — 00:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per bisexual erasure, by the way, I already brought this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#Need suggestions for category renaming and I would direct readers to WJBscribe's and Koweja's comments there first; I think they're right, considering both the intent and the effect of the law. — coelacan talk — 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I think "prosecuted" is probably better. Though suddenly I wonder — do "prosecuted" and "convicted" apply in legal systems where, say, summary execution is permissible? (Say, historical laws of the sea?) And no offense, but I think "same-sex sexuality" sounds silly. —Ruakh_TALK 00:17, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Prosecuted would probably be more inclusive for what the purposes of the category. I have no idea about how the terms would apply in cases with summary execution. Koweja 00:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We may be making a grand leap into thin air with the assumption that the pertinent laws were against homosexuality. Were they not usually against sodomy? Haiduc 00:30, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(1) I think prosecuted would reasonably apply to legal actions taken by the government including summary executions without trial, although it might not be technically accurate in every sense. (2) Some laws reference homosexuality, some reference sodomy or same-sex sexual conduct; "same-sex sexuality" includes identity as well as action. (3) I sympathize with the problems of bisexual erasure but in fact when bisexuals are legally prosecuted it is for our same-sex sexual conduct or interests, not our opposite-sex conduct or interests. Erasure of an identity is different from recognizing the reality of what is criminalized. (4) I'm not wedded to "same-sex behavior" or any other term, but "homosexual" implicitly excludes female same-sex, and raises questions of identity versus behavior ... --LQ 01:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you cite some laws referencing "homosexuality" per se? In England, for example, the law until 1875 specified buggery (with ejaculation, until 1828 and the Offences Against the Person Act). After 1885, "gross indecency" was added by the Labouchere amendment, referring to other forms of same-sex relations, and under which Wilde was convicted. But as it stands I think that the proposed title is misleading and feeds into the general misconception that there was such a thing as "homosexuality" and laws were passed against "it," when nothing could be farther from the truth. Haiduc 02:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think "anti-homosexual laws" is the right phrase, as I indicated above, but some laws/regs. do reference homosexual identity not just "sodomy"; e.g., don't-ask-don't-tell (US military policy). --LQ 02:28, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The "homo" in "homosexuality" comes from Greek "homo" (as in "same"), not Latin "homus" (as in "man"), so I don't know what you're talking about with your claim that it "implicitly excludes female same-sex". And there's nothing in the term to indicate that it refers exclusively to identity or exclusively to behavior; indeed, both "homosexual identity" and "homosexual behavior" get plenty of hits on Google. ("Same-sex sexual identity", by contrast, gets almost no hits, though "same-sex sexual behavior" does get a decent number.) So "homosexuality" is sufficiently inclusive on those fronts, and I agree with your assessment of the bisexual front. —Ruakh_TALK 06:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to Category:People convicted under anti-homosexuality laws, this is most neutral option and fully describes the category. I think that laws prohibiting general behaviour and sodomy can all be brought with the umbrella of anti-homosexuality laws- it is after all the purpose of the law. I also agree with Ruakh that it would include female-female sex. - WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 13:51, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Unfortunately, the perception that "it is after all the purpose of the law" is a common misconception and perfectly illustrates why this is an unwise choice for a title. The purpose of the laws, for most of the historical period under consideration, was to conform with Biblical conventions so as to stave off divine retribution. That is why in England people were often let off even after buggery was proven, because "emission of seed" had not occurred. We need to make sure that we are not creating a situation where we see what we expect to see when looking at the past, since that cannot fail but distort and misrepresent the past. Sodomy, buggery and homosexuality are profoundly different constructs and must not be confused with each other.
  • The phrase "persecution of homosexuals" is in current academic use, and it seems gratuitous to avoid it after having already categorized this topic under "crimes." The peoples are clearly victims and they are clearly, in modern studies, seen as having been persecuted. I still think that the most accurate title would be something like "Victims of official persecution of same-sex relations." And we cannot file this under the "Hate crimes" category since persecutions were not crimes in their time. That is even more pov. Haiduc 14:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Proposal changed: we've got a majority for "prosecuted" and I think we should err in that direction as well. There do seem to be some problems with both "for homosexuality" and "under anti-homosexuality laws", but we're not making it worse by going from the former to the latter. I think this is something that is going to take longer to iron out, and we can do that on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies; I get the feeling that it might take more than a week. So for now, since consensus is only showing "prosecution" but not more, I'm changing the renaming proposal to Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws. This will be the only naming change during this CFR, so if you can't stand it, just vote it down, and if you can abide by it, vote it up. Discuss further proposals at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies. — coelacan talk — 04:53, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. (A.k.a. "abide by", a.k.a. "rename", a.k.a. "vote up".) —Ruakh_TALK 06:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose We are taking an imperfect title and making it much worse, by imputing modern motives to ancient laws. I suggest we suspend proceedings until we resolve this on the project page. What's the hurry? Haiduc 12:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't follow. What motive is implied in "prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws" that isn't implied in "imprisoned or executed for homosexuality"? —Ruakh_TALK 15:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• • As per my comments above, the laws generally were not against "homosexuality" but against buggery and sodomy; the gender of the object buggered was incidental. To label these laws as "anti-homosexuality" is to project our notions onto them, inaccurately. It is ethnocentric, solipsistic, and begs the question. Ouf! Haiduc 23:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    So the laws weren't against homosexuality, but people imprisoned/executed under them were imprisoned/executed for their homosexuality? That makes no sense to me. —Ruakh_TALK 00:36, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • In Greece, until recently, teachers and practitioners of Buddhism were liable to imprisonment under laws protecting the spiritual monopoly of the Eastern Orthodox Church. But it would not be correct to claim that these laws were "anti-Buddhist." Haiduc 01:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      I wouldn't say "That's an anti-Buddhist law", but if someone asked if any countries had laws against Buddhism, Greece would make the list (perhaps with explanation). —Ruakh_TALK 03:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment I see many good points here, and no clear solution. I would support more discussion at the LGBT WikiProject. -- Samuel Wantman 00:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support revised nom to "anti-homosexual", though I equally support further discussion at WP:LGBT (of which I am a member) — OwenBlacker 15:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, I agree that when this closes we need to take some time to discuss possible further revisions. I expect that that will take longer than the week that this CfR is open, though, so I think it's best to take the improvement that "prosecuted" gives immediately. There will always be time in the future to decide what the next step is. — coelacan talk — 18:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• IMO, "People persecuted for homosexuality" would be concise and cover all the ground needed, without unnecessary elaboration. See the 4 definitions of "persecute" at [1]. This user, for one, believes in using the fewest and simplest words to get the job done.  :-) Enuf said. Textorus 08:14, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Coelacan has kindly clarified the issue for me on my talk page and concludes by asking,

  is a renaming of Category:People imprisoned or executed for homosexuality to Category:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws something you can abide by?

My answer is, Yes. No need to use two words ("imprisoned and executed") when one would do ("prosecuted").

Having said that and voted, I would add that "prosecuted for homosexuality" would be even more concise. I see no need to split hairs over whether it refers to orientation or specific acts; the one word covers it all sufficiently for modern readers accustomed to the terminology of our times.

Coelacan has pointed out to me that this is a subcategory of the larger "hate crimes" category, and that the larger category is not really under discussion here. But it does seem to me that the larger category begs to be renamed as well. A hate crime is something done by an individual or group; Oscar Wilde's 1895 trial and the homosexual victims of the Holocaust do not belong under that category, even at one more remove. The overall category ought to be, IMO, "People persecuted for homosexuality", with subcategories "People prosecuted for homosexuality" and "Victims of anti-homosexual violence."

We could debate semantics endlessly, but seems to me the shortest, simplest way to put things is the best. All we need here are category titles that will guide general readers quickly and efficiently to what they want to find--not philosophically precise definitions; save that for article material. And having delivered my 2¢, I'm going back to my coffee and doughnuts now.  :-) Textorus 17:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment: No vote on the current proposal(s). Concur with Textorus that "prosecuted for homosexuality" is the most concise and most easily understood referent for all the relevant potential variants of it. --lquilter 17:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Textorus and lquilter, I agree that there is more work to be done with the second half of the name, and "under anti-homosexuality laws" is suboptimal, although I think it is a working title until consensus reaches an improvement. This part is going to take some time to iron out, longer than the remainder of this CfR, so if sanyone would like to begin discussion, I've opened a section, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies#"Category:People prosecuted ..." to work out what the next step will be after this CfR. — coelacan talk — 17:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 05:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No vote, wrongly tagged as ((prod)), "Tom Green has a detailed article on him. But does he also merit a Category?". -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi there. I had wrongly tagged it. Thank you Provelt for the correction. I just don't see why Tom Green should be a Category unto himself. Maybe I have misunderstood what Categories are.. but his own article is long and detailed and already mentions everything and everyone listed in this Category, which a rather odd collection of minor movies he's done, people he's been married to (albeit briefly). But a Category? I think not. thanks, Shawn in Montreal 22:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, now that I've looked it over, I agree ... the links within the Tom Green article are enough. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. Help control the proliferation of useless eponymous categories. -- Samuel Wantman 08:13, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Pointless category for a transitory celebrity. Greg Grahame 19:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Per above, most people should not have their own eponymous categories. Dugwiki 18:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Timrollpickering 05:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Uncertain nebulae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete - The term "uncertain nebula" has no real meaning in astronomy. According to the description in the category, it is supposed to include "nebulae that are disproven, of uncertain provenance, whose status as nebulae is uncertain, and hypothetical nebulae". If the category were populated, the articles would have little to do with each other. The category should be deleted. (Also note the discussion on Category:Uncertain galaxies in Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 18. Category:Uncertain galaxies was also deleted.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:21, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom, made up on Wikipedia. Good find, Dr. — coelacan talk — 05:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:41, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:Joey episodes to Category:Joey (TV series) episodes

rename, as Joey (TV series).Sjshado 19:37, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nom Also I'm nominating Category:Joey (TV series) for deletion (that parent category is unnecessary). Dugwiki 18:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Note that other categories capitalise "Voivodeship". Timrollpickering 05:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Towns in Greater Poland to Category:Towns in Greater Poland Voivodeship

• Rename, The current title confuses the province (Greater Poland Voivodeship) with a region (Greater Poland) that is not well-defined. Appleseed (Talk) 17:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename, but tepidly, as it is not clear why the province article uses "Voivodeship" rather than "voivodeship", and if that is still to be fought out, there may not be much point changing the category yet. HeartofaDog 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename Regardless of whether or not it is capitalized, its absence is still confusing in the category nom. OBriain 07:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Timrollpickering 10:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Sephardi Jews to Category:People of Sephardic ancestry

• Rename, List can be more versatile and include a wider range of people. It might be hard to add people of converso origin otherwise. Feel free to add suggestions of other possible names that give same idea. Mehmeda 16:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger 17:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename I agree, the second name is better. TSO1D 19:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Replace with a list, This category should be deleted, like Category:Ashkenazi Jews which was deleted here at CfD (in September of 2005), and replaced with List of Sephardi Jews, similar to List of Ashkenazi Jews. This has the potential to be a very long list, and membership may be difficult to determine, which would be helped by the annotation that a list offers. -- Samuel Wantman 08:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Object to rename Lots more people have a Sephardi Jew ancestor than identify themselves as Sephardic, or even identify themselves as Jewish. It is fairly likely that even Adolf Hitler had at least one Sephardic ancestor (perhaps 20 generations previously) Bluap 17:59, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. The rename would solve a dispute on the George Allen (U.S. politician) article. - Crockspot 22:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Object to rename Impossible to maintain, nonencyclopedic especially as many certainly choose to or choose not to self-identify as Sephardic. Akin to making a list of people who identify as having English or French descent; there are obvious candidates, but there are millions who have obscure descent. It's just not encyclopedic. OBriain 07:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • They're not lists, but we do have Category:People of English descent and Category:People of French descent. Mairi 16:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • There is a strong argument to be made for making all of these "descent" categories into lists, as millions of Americans would fall into several of them. A person might be descendent from a dozen or more nationalities, all of which are likely not defining characteristics. This seems like a case of overcategorization -- Samuel Wantman 01:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose the underlying principle of extending ethnic categorisation as much as possible. Chicheley 11:49, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 05:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Silicon Valley people, see discussions of October 25th and December 15th. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:20, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose I am still not clear on whether the category is for Stars of Silicon Valley companies, People Born in Silicon Valley, People raised in Silicon Valley, People living in Silicon Valley, People who have at one time been associated with Silicon Valley by birth, occupation or residence. TonyTheTiger 17:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • So how does opposing the merger help anything? Wimstead 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge, possibly rename per one of the previous suggestions. Wimstead 22:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge as it is an industry category, per previous debates. Greg Grahame 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Minor counties cricket. Timrollpickering 05:38, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to Category:Minor counties of English cricket to match Minor counties of English cricket, current name is context-free. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger 17:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

*Rename per nom. As far as I know, the term "Minor Counties" is unique to English cricket but to place it in context for the benefit of WP readers is the correct approach. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to Category:Minor counties cricket which is more succinct and elegant and better adapted to contain articles on any aspect of minor counties cricket. Greg Grahame 19:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Minor counties cricket and move the lead article to that title. The category includes an article about a competition, which does not belong in it under either the present name or the nominator's proposed name. Osomec 08:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• rename to Category:Minor counties cricket as per the two previous proposals. I've removed my earlier entry. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 20:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Noosa suburbs to Category:Suburbs of Noosa

• Rename, Per conventions listed at Category:Neighbourhoods_in_Australia. --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 10:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename - it is consistent with that category, and still quite short. Zephyr103 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge. Timrollpickering 05:33, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Famous Taiwanese aborigines to Category:Taiwanese aborigines

• "Famous" is POV and somewhat redundant (since someone who passes the notability criteria is probably famous). Rename. --Nlu (talk) 08:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge into Category:Taiwanese aborigines -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge per nom. Greg Grahame 19:47, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was deleted by JzG. Whispering 22:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:California BPPVE Approved Institutions - Degree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:California Bureau of Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:California BPPVE Registered Institutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:California BPPVE Religious Exempt Institutions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:California BPPVE Approved Institutions - Title 38 (Veterans) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:California BPPVE Approved Institutions - Non-Degree (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:California BPPVE Approved Institutions - Non-WASC Regionally Accredited (CEC §94905) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete all The creator of these categories has tried to confused the BPPVE with school accreditation; being approved by this group for "degrees" is meaningless and has nothing to do with "education" per se because this group is part of the California Department of Consumer Affairs.

• Concerning articles: either a school is part of an accreditated group under Category:School accreditors or belongs under Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning.

• The "BPPVE Approved" categories have no value and is created by a user with POV; there is only one "school" listed under one of these categories which the creator is interested: see his edit history. FFGGGFFFF 07:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete all ... It seems that these were created to give Pacific Western University the appearence of accreditation. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy Keep - It may be defamatory to refer to a California Bureau for Private Postsecondary and Vocational Education (BPPVE) institution as unaccredited. The six categories I created provide a way for Wikipedia editors to convey the legal status of thousands of California education institution without worrying about the issue of defamation. Of the 1,500,000+ articles on Wikipedia, only eight are under the scrutiny of the Wikimedia Foundation Office. One is California's Pacific Western University. Although the reasons why its there are unknown, a likely reason may be that no Wikipedia category previously existed to properly categorize it. That is one reason which inspired me to create these six categories, the names of which are taken from the bottom of this California government page. There are hundreds of California BPPVE education institutions that may be Wikipedia categories in one or more of the six new categories. See Degree, non-Degree, Non-WASC Regionally Accredited, registered, religious exempt, Title 38. Many California BPPVE institutions are listed under the POV List of unaccredited institutions of higher learning and the POV Category:Unaccredited_institutions_of_higher_learning and should be moved to one or more of the above six categories. Many California BPPVE institutions also are otherwise labeled as unaccredited throughout Wikipedia and their label should be revised from unaccredited to whatever California says they are. Wikipedia is not the place to judge the political wiseness of California's BPPVE. Wikipedia is the place to convey information and let other's make their own judgment. Deleting these six categories may force Wikipedia and the editors contributing to Wikipedia in a position of taking a POV side on the wiseness of California's BPPVE and may expose them to legal liability by failing to properly categorize a California education institution. Many of these California BPPVE institutions probably should not be in business, but potentially defaming them through Wikipedia by not providing proper categories is not the correct way to proceed. Regarding the speedy portion of my keep vote, Wikipedia Guide to deletion states that Sockpuppeting is not to be tolerated. See Special:Contributions/FFGGGFFFF. -- Jreferee 14:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See the BPPVE brochure: "Approval is not the same as accreditation."[2] Pushing POV is not tolerated. Any other attempts to classify BPPVE as accreditation, now that you have directly and inmistakably proved that is FALSE, will be further proof of your agenda. FFGGGFFFF 20:53, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete all - This appears to be some type of debate between Jreferee and FFGGGFFFF that has spilled into the Categories for Discussion page. Regardless, I can say that people in general are not going to navigate business or institution articles by their accreditation by state government agencies. Moreover, adding categories to note the accreditation (especially multiple categories for multiple types of accreditation) will simply contribute to category clutter. It is probably better to note the accreditation (if valid) on the individual articles' pages (although I honestly do not think that accreditation issues are worth noting unless individual schools are unaccredited). Dr. Submillimeter 16:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment - Pacific Western University has several warnings on its page, including a statement that the Wikimedia Foundation Office is looking over the article. I have left a notice on the Administrators' Noticeboard asking for oversight in this debate. Dr. Submillimeter 17:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• I have deleted all as a blatant piece of POV-pushing. We do not list the schools which are "approved" in this way, accreditaiton is what matters and PWU is verifiably unaccredited, as stated in the Senate and elsewhere. Guy (Help!) 21:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy. the wub "?!" 09:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Pakistani first-class cricket teams (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as this is a duplicate of category:Pakistani first class cricket teams (i.e., we don't use the hyphen). Created in error. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:23, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, empty unused duplicate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete see speedy delete TonyTheTiger 18:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete Appleseed (Talk) 01:50, 18 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was keep. Timrollpickering 05:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Non-article British Columbia pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A Category which collects links to Category Talk pages? No, too much meta-data. This would never end. It's elephants all the way down. User:Zoe|(talk) 05:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment assesment category for Wikipedia:WikiProject British Columbia. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Speedy-keep. Lists, portal, categories and so on are sorted such. Sevral projects have identical categories. Circeus 00:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: Turtles all the way down, not elephants. Heretic! — coelacan talk — 00:12, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep, this is a ubiquitous and very convenient way for WikiProjects to separate out non-article (or, more precisely, not-needing-assessment) pages that would otherwise fall into the regular article assessment categories. Kirill Lokshin 00:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per ProveIt -- Selmo ^(talk) 02:23, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Modeling-themed TV shows to Category:Modeling-themed television programs

• Rename - Expand the abbreviation, "programs" preferable to "shows." Otto4711 03:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. TonyTheTiger 17:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Mythical islands to Category:Mythological islands

• Rename, Because the word mythical is ambiguous, the fictional islands can be reparented under fiction. Goldenrowley 03:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Mythical substances to Category:Mythological subtances

• Rename, Because the word mythical is ambiguous. the fiction subcategory can be reparented under fictional. Goldenrowley 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Mythic weapons to Category:Mythological weapons

• Rename, Because the word mythic is ambiguous in this context and because mythological is more clear. Goldenrowley 03:27, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Mythical substances to Category:Mythological substances

• Rename, Because the word mythical is ambiguous. Goldenrowley 03:24, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:31, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Mythical places to Category:Mythological places

• Rename, Because the word mythical is ambiguous. Goldenrowley 03:22, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:27, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Mythical peoples to Category:Mythological peoples

• Rename, Because the word mythical is ambigious at best. Goldenrowley 03:19, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Mythological objects per conventions on capitalisation. Timrollpickering 05:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Mythical objects to Category:Mythological Objects

• Rename, because the word mythical is ambigious - it could mean either fictional or mythological dependent purely on the conversation -- while mythology is the intent and the parent category.Goldenrowley 03:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Mythological objects. -Sean Curtin 06:17, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Arpitan personnalities to Category:People from Arpitania

• Rename, per naming standard. robwingfield ^«T•C» 02:39, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:24, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Visconti to Category:House of Visconti

• Rename, per other categories for ruling houses. Chicheley 02:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 22:09, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename. Timrollpickering 05:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:MegaMan Battle Network games to Category:Mega Man Battle Network games

• Rename, Capcom (the developer/publisher/owner of the franchise) spells it as 2 seperate words rather than 1 word in CamelCase [3]. TJ Spyke 01:01, 16 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 08:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 section.