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 13:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

This is a duplicate category. Merge into the standard form category:Languages of Egypt and delete CalJW 23:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep. " Egyptian languages" is not the same thing as "languages of Egypt". Arabic, for instance, is a language of Egypt, but it's not an Egyptian language. — Insta ntnood 18:17, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I can see the distinction, but it is not standard to make it in the category system. It will not be generally understood, it will lead people to miss articles because they may not realise that both exist. Overall it does more harm than good. CalJW 19:43, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • The former is linguistics, and the latter is based on present-day political boundaries. May I ask if there's any confusion between category:Germanic languages and category:languages of Germany? :-) — Insta ntnood 20:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep. There are two seperate categorization schemes involved; Category:Egyptian languages works as a subcategory of Category:Afro-Asiatic languages, a subcat of Category:Language families, and Category:Languages of Egypt works as a subcat of Category:Languages of Africa, which is in turn a subcat of Category:Languages by country. Per Instantnood, one is linguistic, one is geographical. While the name of the nationality and the language family just happens to be the same in this case (Egyptian), both category structures have important and seperate reasons for existing. siafu 21:35, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Instantnood and siafu. -- Angr/ _{tɔk tə mi} 06:36, 20 September 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 per nomination -- Kbdank71 13:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

These categories are based on state lines and this is already in category:Categories by country so it should be renamed category:Tourism by country. CalJW 23:02, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:59, 23 September 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 SPEEDY DELETE, as it's a recreation last deleted two days ago. Note also that the creator is presently blocked for a week (!) for disruption and extreme personal attacks. - Splash ^talk 19:52, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• A vague term that cannot be precisely defined, hence too broad and useless. mikka (t) 17:24, 16 September 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 SPEEDY DELETE per creator's request. - Splash ^talk 20:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC) I created this one but decided instead to use the more appropriate title of Category:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases. -- PullUpYourSocks 19:58, 16 September 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 Soft redirect. ∞ Who ?¿? 06:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Empty, and redundant category of Category:Book publishers of the United States Howcheng 17:19, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• {{ categoryredirect}} would be useful here, I think. - Splash ^talk 20:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This was speedied by Mikkalai as redundant. That is not a speedy, no matter how obvious and I have recreated it with the above category redirect. - Splash ^talk 20:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Actually empty and redundant are both clauses for CSD (general 4), but I see no problem with keeping it as a soft redirect, even though I dont like them as much as deletion :) ∞ Who ?¿? 23:28, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
    • That only applies to recreations, which this category was not (see the deletion log, it's only been deleted once). G4 does not speak about redundancy. - Splash ^talk 02:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC) reply
      • Ahh, I was speaking more of the redundancy part, rather than the recreation, but then I see that I misread it. No matter now. :) ∞ Who ?¿? 03:19, 20 September 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 Category:Nebraska State Senators. ∞ Who ?¿? 03:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Category is inappropriate for Nebraska, as we have had a unicameral legislature since 1937. Category only had 3 articles; two of those articles were for Nebraska legislators who served in the unicameral era. Finally, many states with bicameral legislatures have Category:Foo State Legislators for the members of both houses. This category, as it pertains to Nebraska, is redundant. Category:Nebraska State Legislators is much more appropriate. Swid 05:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Nebraska State Senators. From Nebraska Legislature: Though the name of the body is simply "the Legislature," members continue to be known as Senators. siafu 17:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Nebraska State Senators. -- Kbdank71 14:10, 22 September 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 03:37, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

Duplicates category:Relativistic Information Science, which is also being considered for deletion. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Relativistic_Information_Science.

• Speedy delete per my reasons above EMS | Talk 05:43, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Comment It is notable that Carl Hewitt, who created this category, has not objected even to its speedy deletion. He is aware of it, as evidence by his comment on Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Relativistic_Information_Science. -- EMS | Talk 23:19, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete This is a (possibly naive) attempt by User:CarlHewitt to evade the ongoing VfD regarding category:Relativistic Information Science. Prof. Hewitt, creating a duplicate of your (article, category) X while X is up for a VfD is a big no-no around here.--- CH (talk) 09:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete linas 19:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete once the CfD for category:Relativistic Information Science closes with consensus to delete. If that earlier category closes with consensus to keep, then merge and delete (right now there's nothing to merge. but i believe in process). Nandesuka 15:54, 17 September 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 all. ∞ Who ?¿? 03:32, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

These are the only three first tier categories in category:United Kingdom which use this form, so I would like to see them renamed:

• category:Museums in the UK to Category:Museums in the United Kingdom.
• category:Government of the UK to Category:Government of the United Kingdom.
• category:Politics of the UK to Category:Politics of the United Kingdom

CalJW 05:14, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename avoid abbreviations. - Splash ^talk 20:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment changed to {{ cfru}}, please see CFD howto or Template talk:Cfru for how to use the {{ cfru}} template. Also see {{ cfdu}}. ∞ Who ?¿? 23:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. ∞ Who ?¿? 23:37, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nomination. -- Kbdank71 14:08, 22 September 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 (no change). ∞ Who ?¿? 03:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC) reply

This move was made recently as a result of this discussion, however, there are a large number of pages and subpages involving this construction, list of U.S. state snack foods to name one of the sillier ones. Anyhow, to my ear, United States state whatever sounds very repetitive and clumsy, and I don't think U.S. state is so opaque that a large number of English speakers would be unable to decipher it. That's why that phrasing was chosen in the first place. Other subcategories moved as a result of this are Category:United States state birds, Category:United States state flags, Category:United States state seals and Category:United States state songs. Thanks for your consideration. jengod 05:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Standard is to avoid abbreviations in category names. That was the purpose of the previous change, to follow standards. I oppose a move back to a non-standard name. - TexasAndroid 15:12, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Avoid abbreviations. siafu 20:28, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. We've been through this already, as the nominator points out, and abbreviations are well established as being undesirable. Rename those that don't fit rather than the other way around. - Splash ^talk 20:39, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support, I agree with jengod. Standards are not iron-clad rules that must be followed in all cases. dbenbenn | talk 23:23, 16 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support. Agree with dbenbenn. Maurreen (talk) 07:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support. Avoid redundancy. Neutrality ^talk 16:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Support Euphony is more important than mindless consistency. Caerwine 19:04, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose avoid abbrev's :) I also do not think that it sounds, nor looks redundant, it is understood that the first is a proper noun. Also prefer a standardization when possible. ∞ Who ?¿? 23:40, 19 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as per avoid abbrevs. -- Kbdank71 14:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose I suppose, because it rhymes. ∞ Who ?¿? 01:58, 23 September 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.