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 21:59, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply

delete empty, self made cat, all members moved to Category:People of Irish descent in Great Britain and Category:Irish people in Great Britain to resolve labelling and inaccuracy objections. Arniep 18:43, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment, slightly concerned at the possible broadness of the new categories. Is it intended for someone like Martin O'Neill (footballer) to fit into them? Hiding talk 19:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

thanks for the tip! Arniep 02:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Are you including only those with Irish parents in the "people of Irish descent" category? JW 12:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply

no, we discussed this before, Irish ancestry can be significant to people further back than a parent, I am using the same requirement as is used for American categories, 1/4, one grandparent or two great grandparents. Arniep 14:54, 12 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 09:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply

I hope we can continue to move towards standardisation. Over 85% of the subcategories of Category:American people by occupation already use American, and it is probably over 90% if the sub-sub categories are included. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American recently concluded following a strong vote in favour of "American". Several recent votes here have gone in favour of "American". Universal usage of "American" is the only form of consistency we are going to get, and consistent naming will encourage accurate categorisation by making it less hassle as people won't have to check which form is in use or edit twice if they don't and they guess wrong. It is normal English as is evinced by usage in articles, which is probably around 99% "American". It is not U.S. centric as much of the support for U.S. comes from Americans anxious not to offend while people from other English speaking countries seem to favour "American" more strongly if anything. "American" or a variant is preferred by many non-English language wikipedias, and people who say it is confusing always seem to say that some unspecified other person might be unclear what was meant, not that they were unsure personally. So let's finally be consistent and apply normal English to the remaining categories, with exceptions only when they reflect usage of official United States national government terms, eg Category:United States Navy people.

• category:United States astronauts --> Category:American astronauts
• category:U.S. businesspeople --> Category:American businesspeople
• category:U.S. oil industrialists --> Category:American oil industrialists
• category:U.S. tobacco industry executives --> Category:American tobacco industry executives
• category:U.S. energy industry executives --> Category:American energy industry executives
• category:United States railroad executives --> Category:American railroad executives
• category:U.S. campaign managers --> Category:American campaign managers
• category:U.S. comedians --> Category:American comedians
• category:United States environmentalists --> Category:American environmentalists
• category:U.S. philanthropists --> Category:American philanthropists
• category:U.S. politicians --> Category:American politicians
• category:United States radio personalities --> Category:American radio personalities
• category:United States musicians --> Category:American musicians
• category:United States rappers --> Category:American rappers
• category:U.S. theatre directors --> Category:American theatre directors

Rename or merge all CalJW 16:54, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Agree consistency is a very good thing. Martin 16:59, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Agree, I think there's been demonstrable consensus on this position both in previous votes here and at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (categories)/Usage of American. Hiding talk 19:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Agree to rename as suggested all in the list above (15 as of this opinion). Courtland 23:24, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Strong support to all. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. - Darwinek 10:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Mayumashu 12:35, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Carina22 14:21, 14 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 no consensus -- Kbdank71 21:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This cats strikes me as extemely fancruft-y - do we really need a category that consists solely of Lavigne herself, the current and ex-members of her band and her current boyfriend? This cat merely duplicates information can be found in the main Avril Lavigne article.

• Delete: Per nom. - Kurt Shaped Box 11:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep The category system is a navigation tool. If there are a significant number of related items it follows automatically that there should be a category, even if the subject matter is relatively trivial. CalJW 16:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The category system is a navigational tool for broad-ranging subjects, not specific objects. What is included here should not go beyond list status within the article about Avril Lavigne. Lists are navigational tools, too. 12.73.201.93 20:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Where's the above policy stated? (And if it is, change it). Honbicot 23:30, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There is no guideline on this at the moment. I am trying to get consensus for one. My feeling is that if the albums and singles categories exist (as per guidelines), then the parent cat only makes sense. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music#Any_consensus_on_categories?. pfctdayelise 02:13, 14 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 keep -- Kbdank71 21:58, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Lavigne has recorded two albums - do they need their own category? Limited potential for growth.

• Delete: Per nom. - Kurt Shaped Box 11:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep - There are many, many album by performer categories, many of which have one or two entries. But they are IMHO still useful for those seeking the particular performer's works. - TexasAndroid 14:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep It's a lot better to have small categories than hundreds or thousands of uncategorised albums. CalJW 16:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete & Listify. It's even better still to have organized lists of pertinent (to a single subject) related articles than a rampant plethora of categories which can't be accessed by Search. 12.73.201.93 20:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep Categories do not interfere with search. Honbicot 23:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep. — Insta ntnood 06:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per guidelines at WP:ALBUM#Categories! pfctdayelise 01:46, 14 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 21:57, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty cat except for a link to Category:Avril_Lavigne_singles. While the singles cat may be useful, this can never be more than a duplicate cat at best - or a list of non-notable songs at worst (if someone were to take it upon themself to write an article on every nn Avril Lavigne song, for instance).

• Delete: Per nom. - Kurt Shaped Box 11:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete for now. CalJW 16:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and Listify within article on April Lavigne when titles become available. See above comment on albums. 12.73.201.93 20:20, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per guidelines on Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Categories! pfctdayelise 01:45, 14 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 20:03, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Sportspeople is the normal term on wikipedia and in real life. "Sportspersons" is an ugly and unnecessary PC term. The parent category is Category:Sportspeople and the main article is List of sportspeople. CalJW 04:16, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom -- Ian ≡ talk 06:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom Hiding talk 14:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom - Mayumashu 14:23, 11 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 19:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Some of these are not in the standard "in" form for man-made objects:

• Category:Australian rugby union stadiums --> Category:Rugby union stadiums in Australia
• Category:English rugby union stadia --> Category:Rugby union stadiums in England
• Category:Japanese rugby union stadiums --> Category:Rugby union stadiums in Japan
• Category:South African rugby union stadiums --> Category:Rugby union stadiums in South Africa
• Category:Welsh rugby union stadiums --> Category:Rugby union stadiums in Wales

• Rename all CalJW 03:07, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom -- Ian ≡ talk 06:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Did you mean "rename"? CalJW 16:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nomination, but keep stadiums/stadia. — Insta ntnood 12:47, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • There is only one "stadia" category, and it is for my country. My personal preference is for "stadia" but it is not a local usage issue. Many British people prefer stadiums, and I would rather see consistency than preserve my personal preference at the expense of consistency. CalJW 16:29, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
    • If that's not local usage, then rename that one as stadiums too. Nevertheless for countries where the local usage is stadia, use stadia. — Insta ntnood 18:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename, seems fair enough Hiding talk 14:06, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Stadia was only local usage in Ancient Rome. Honbicot 23:32, 12 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 21:56, 18 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This is a redundant category, created and being populated by an anon who doesn't respond to talk comments. I believe the category was previously deleted (twice?). Redundant with Category:Chemical elements. Vsmith 02:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom -- Ian ≡ talk 06:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination ... though it will likely be recreated in the future. I will shortly add a brief statement at Category_talk:Chemical elements about the category name being synonymous with "Elements". That won't deter a thoughtless editor, but it might remove a little mystery for thoughtful editors. Courtland 23:28, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Note: anon 70.236.240.243 [1] has removed the cfd notice 3 times and placed a cfd tag on Category:Chemical elements without follow through or any discussion anywhere. Anon had also restarted moving element article to this cat. I have reverted and blocked the anon for this obvious vandalism. Vsmith 02:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Vsmith. -- Nlu 05:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Honbicot 23:32, 12 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Carina22 14:21, 14 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• categoryredirect to Chemical Elements. 132.205.45.148 22:39, 14 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 20:07, 20 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Nearly all the sport by country categories have been renamed to the "in" form now, but there are quite a few UK categories which were not included, either because they are for sports for which few if any other countries have categories yet so there is no "X by country" category in Category:Sports by country or because they weren't in that category or its subcategories when the renaming was done for some other reason.

• Category:British athletics --> Category:Athletics in the United Kingdom
• Category:British boxing --> Category:Boxing in the United Kingdom
• Category:British cricket --> Category:Cricket in the United Kingdom
• Category:British gliding --> Category:Gliding in the United Kingdom
• Category:United Kingdom football --> Category:Football in the United Kingdom
• Category:British motorsport --> Category:Motorsport in the United Kingdom
• Category:British rugby union --> Category:Rugby union in the United Kingdom
• Category:British sailing --> Category:Sailing in the United Kingdom
• Category:British skiing --> Category:Skiing in the United Kingdom
• Category:British snooker --> Category:Snooker in the United Kingdom

• Rename all CalJW 01:44, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per nom -- Ian ≡ talk 06:38, 11 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename seems fair enough. Hiding talk 14:05, 11 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.