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. -- TexasAndroid 15:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This category is both empty and displays very little NPOV. Furthermore, a list of people who have been described as champagne socialists is already available at Champagne_socialist.

Who decides whether a person is rich enough (or left-wing enough, for that matter) to be included? Categories without defined criteria for inclusion should be avoided. Stevecov 23:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per nom. Osomec 23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, unverifiable and attack term/POV. - choster 00:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 20:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Term is inherently POV and has no place as an "objective" categorization scheme in an encyclopedia that strives for neutrality. Bearcat 22:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Term is usually used as a pejorative, not a neutral description. CJCurrie 03:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. The label is never accepted by those to whom it is applied, so cannot fit within NPOV. BrownHairedGirl 04:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nom. Alan Liefting 06:45, 15 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 14:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

For consistency with the proposed renaming below. Qwghlm 22:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. Osomec 23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename. See below for rationale. Slumgum 23:12, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 20:35, 8 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 14:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a category for football (soccer) players who have played for the England national football team. I feel that (1) it is a little too similar to Category:English footballers, and (2) when compared alongside categories such as Category:Northern Ireland footballers and Category:Republic of Ireland footballers (which cover all footballers with their respective nationalities, not just internationals), it becomes potentially confusing. Including the word "international" would make it clear what the category covers, and would draw a clearer distinction.

See also previous discussion at Category talk:England footballers. Qwghlm 22:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename. I support this move. I made both categories without considering the names in relation to categories for other countries. A totally unambiguous name would be better. Slumgum 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Osomec 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 20:34, 8 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 14:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This category seems to be a result of a usage confusion (the whole of Category:Sports trophies and awards is a bit of a mess). In the United States vast numbers of sports awards are handed out, but in the world awards are much fewer and trophies go with competitions. The ten items in this category are all for golf tournaments, so it is just a very incomplete dulplicate of Category:Golf tournaments. Delete. Osomec 19:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete A random selection of tournaments. I wonder how they were selected. ReeseM 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I can tell you how, since I selected them. Every one of them has a physical trophy that bears its name, just like all the other subcategories of Category:Sports trophies and awards. Green Jacket is one that doesn't have a place to go otherwise. Many other sports have exactly this category. Why should golf be left out of it?-- Mike Selinker 14:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Follow-up. Apparently, Osomec redirected Green Jacket to The Masters before listing the category for deletion.-- Mike Selinker 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I believe Mike Selinker is wrong in at least cases (the two World Cups). Probably all of these categories should be renamed "Awards" and all the competitions should be taken out. Singling out sporting events because the trophy has the same name as the competition is bizarre and pointless. Hawkestone 15:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Kind of a duplicate of category:Golf tournaments. Golfcam 21:03, 9 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 14:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Redundant category on former state ( Zelaya) and not up-to-date (state presently splitted into two new districts ( [1] of Región Autónoma del Atlántico Norte and [2] of Región Autónoma del Atlántico Sur). ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 18:48, 7 March 2006 (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 as is. -- TexasAndroid 15:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Most articles fall into more than one category. David Kernow 15:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename. David Kernow 15:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Abstain on grounds raised by BL Lacertae and NickelShoe below. (Thanks for your input. Has this discussion occurred before? Apologies if so.) Best wishes, David Kernow 01:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC) (proposer) reply
• oppose. first the current name stops argument about how to spell categorisation and second all the articles in that category have no categories marked. all they need is one category to remove them from the cat. if you change it then it will imply that the template can be put on articles which already have a category on them which isnt what its for. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per BL Lacertae. I think the emphasis on a single category is fine. More categories can be added later, but one (other than Living people or something) is enough to get it out of this backlogged maintenance category. NickelShoe 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment it could just be renamed Category:Categories needed 132.205.44.134 01:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as unnecessary. -- Reinyday, 05:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose for same reasons as BL Lacertae and NickelShoe Yendor1958 13:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as per BL Lacertae. — LrdChaos 18:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose due to reasons above. Additionally, the new name is too US-centric, while the current name is neutral and doesn't look strange to anyone. Lankiveil 11:40, 9 March 2006 (UTC). reply
• Oppose per the reasons listed above. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 07:48, 10 March 2006 (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 consensous. -- TexasAndroid 15:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

rename category names without the ungrammatical hyphen as was done recently all pages for Canadian people. (note too that a few cat pages for American people recently were not renamed from no hyphen to hyphen in voting on this page.) these names use two words, an adjective 'fooian' to describe a noun 'Americans', as in 'Fooian Americans'. a hyphen is only necessary and grammatical when two adjectives describe a noun, as in 'Fooian-Booian Americans' or 'Fooian-American (actors)'. Mayumashu 14:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC) Rename or merge the following: reply

• Category:Albanian-Americans to Category:Albanian Americans
• Category:Armenian-Americans to Category:Armenian Americans
• Category:Austrian-Americans to Category:Austrian Americans
• Category:Brazilian-Americans to Category:Brazilian Americans
• Category:Caribbean-Americans to Category:Caribbean Americans
• Category:Colombian-Americans to Category:Colombian Americans
• Category:Croatian-Americans to Category:Croatian Americans
• category:Cuban-Americans to Category:Cuban Americans
• Category:Czech-Americans to Category:Czech Americans
• Category:Estonian-Americans to Category:Estonian Americans
• Category:Finnish-Americans to Category:Finnish Americans
• Category:German-Americans to Category:German Americans
• Category:Greek-Americans to Category:Greek Americans
• Category:Guatemalan-Americans to Category:Guatemalan Americans
• Category:Hungarian-Americans to Category:Hungarian Americans
• Category:Icelandic-Americans to Category:Icelandic Americans
• Category:Irish-Americans to Category:Irish Americans
• Category:Israeli-Americans to Category:Israeli Americans
• Category:Italian-Americans to Category:Italian Americans
• Category:Latvian-Americans to Category:Latvian Americans
• Category:Lithuanian-Americans to Category:Lithuanian Americans
• Category:Maltese-Americans to Category:Maltese Americans

• Rename for grammar. I tried to convince someone of this on a category talk page a while back, but got the impression nobody cared. NickelShoe 19:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per proper grammatic phrasing. This too has bothered me that there were two different forms within the European Americans categories and no one seemed to mind. Also made it more difficult trying to classify any given individual because you wouldn't know if the ethnic group was listed with or without a hyphen. ExRat 06:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC) - EDIT - Also, isn't the correct term SLOVAKIAN and not SLOVAK AMERICAN? The term Slovak seems just a little . . . incorrect as a proper descriptive term, although I know it is used . . . but maybe it's just me. ExRat 06:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

looks like from i could check here that 'Slovak' refers to the people and things of the ethnic group where 'Slovakian' describes things/people of the modern country. there could be two separate cat pages with one the sub-cat of the other if any Americans exist with bio pages here of Slovakian roots who are not ethnically Slovak Mayumashu

• Oppose I disagree that the hyphen is ungrammatical. In the unhyphenated form (e.g. Albanian American) the sense is Adjective + Noun; the semantic implication of this is that the person is an American who has Albanian nationality (in the same way that Albanian writer describes a writer who has Albanian nationality). At best this is an unlikely combination (barring people with dual nationalities); at worst it is self-evidently nonsense. On the other hand, the form Albanian-American implies that the person is an amalgam of Albanian and American; in the context of the American practice of obsessing over "ethnic" identity this is understood as meaning an American citizen who was previously an Albanian citizen, or who had an ancestor who was Albanian. The term for such combinations is Hyphenated American and this has been in use for somewhere in the region of a 100 years (as has the hyphen). Grammar is ultimately a matter of usage; if the hyphen is regularly used and has always regularly been used then I'm not sure we can peremptorily declare it ungrammatical. Valiantis 15:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose These are "hyphenated Americans". If there is a rule of grammar here perhaps it is out of date. The English language changes, but people who are sticklers for grammar tend to like to pretend it doesn't. The hyphen seems to me to de-emphasise the non-American identity, which is desirable because these people are Americans first and foremost. Carina22 16:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

this kind of makes sense then as the language here reflects a cultural difference - it seems likely that a majority of Americans prefer the hyphen to add more emphasis to American identity of the person while a majority of Canadians prefer the non-hyphenated (traditional grammar) form perhaps to emphasis internationalist feeling. i want to see consistency here like nearly all serious users here and suggest we establish the inconsistency here as a difference between prefered American and Canadian Englishes and get the American cat pages all with hyphens (just the Canadian ones were all recently non-hyphened) Mayumashu 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

I don't buy into the notion of a U.S./Canada dichotomy, either. Furthermore, it wouldn't surprise me if there were different feelings on this issue among members of different ethnic groups; I don't necessarily think we need a foolish consistency in the hyphenated Americans. Gene Nygaard 07:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose I don't buy that it is ungrammatical. Gene Nygaard 07:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Valiantis. — Blotwell 11:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• comment so should it be as User:Gene Nygaard suggests with names on a case-by-case basis with respect to hyphen use or should all non-hyphened names be "hyphenated"? Mayumashu 12:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Despite my comment above, I'd like to see the consistency of hyphenating the ones that aren't. It makes it easier for editors adding the categories. I think the differences that might exist in usage or preferences are only a matter of degree. Gene Nygaard 19:51, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I agree. There absolutely has to be consistency whatever the decision is reached. It is far too difficult while editing profiles to try and simply guess which ethnic group is or is not a hyphenated American. If the decision is to keep the hyphen, then I suggests the other groups are then hyphenated. ExRat 04:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: This isn't a question of grammar but of MoS. Chicago Manual of Style says no hyphen; I can't see that the Associated Press Stylebook takes an opinion on the matter (though someone with a hardcopy can look it up and tell for sure), and The American Heritage Book of English Usage says no hyphen in the noun, and it's optional in the adjective. So we should pick one, stick it in the MoS, and be done with it. Deborah-jl _Talk 05:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

and were considering nouns here. it s traditional grammar as presented in the usage manuals versus (rather) common usage (based on what was grammar confusion initially, i d guess but anyway) and as users have mentioned language evolves. Mayumashu 14:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, the Economist Style Guide says to use a hyphen, both for the noun and the adjective. — Blotwell 06:02, 11 March 2006 (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. (With no prejudice against creating a DC cat if one is needed at a future date) -- TexasAndroid 16:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Unpopulated category. Duplicates Category:Prisons in Washington, created in error by me last night whilst ceating several prisons in xx categories for US states as sub-categories for Category:Prisons in the United States. -- BrownHairedGirl 10:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to something like Category:Prisons in Washington D.C. or Category:Prisons in the District of Columbia unless a similar category exists already (in which case Delete this category) or there are no prisons in D.C. Green Giant 11:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I'm still abit new to this, so please forgive me if I am wrong, but won't renaming the category have the effect of creating a redirect from the old category name the new one? Having Prisons in Washington state redirect to Prisons in Washington D.C. would be bad news. If I'm right, seems better to delete; but if I'm wrong, then Green Giant's idea sounds good. -- BrownHairedGirl 22:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Comment I'm not sure but I don't think the category gets redirected. Green Giant 23:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
      • That's correct. We do not leave redirects in the wake of category renames. × Meegs 12:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I know there used to be others, but according to Washington D.C.'s DOC site, they now have only one operational prison. I don't think we have articles for of the defunct ones either, so I'm going to say delete, not rename. × Meegs 14:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Only one prison in D.C. but several halfway houses and on prison hospital, which might usefully fall under Category:Prisons in Washington D.C. -- BrownHairedGirl 22:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • True. If we had an article for any one of them, or a list of them all akin to List of Wyoming state prisons, then a D.C. category would have value to people browsing Category:Prisons in the United States. × Meegs 13:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Given the discussion above, especially the hepful explanation by Meegs, I'd support renaming to Prisons in Washington D.C. as the best solution. Sorry for my ignorance again, but can anyone explain how that can be done? Is there a separate process, or is this discussion enough for an admin to get to work? -- BrownHairedGirl 18:02, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No, this forum covers both renames and deletions (as well as mergers). After a week an admin will review this discussion and, if there's a consensus, take the appropriate action. If you want a Washington, D.C. category, though, there's no need to wait – just make one now and let this category die at the end of the week. Note, though, that empty categories are usually deleted, which is why I suggested first making at least a list of the D.C. facilities to put in the new category. × Meegs 17:25, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Let's not have no consensus because of discussion drift. If DC needs a category then create it out side of this discussion. Vegaswikian 00:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. If the need arises for a Washington, D.C. category, it can be created later. - EurekaLott 20:01, 14 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 14:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

(Not really enough support for the alternate rename, though that could be given it's own, new nomination easily enough.)

To conform to other named cats. The category Category:Northern Irish cheeses has already been created. Please delete the older cat. -- Mal 09:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support deleting Category:Northern Irish cheese. -- Reinyday, 05:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to Category:Northern Ireland cheeses, per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_September_9#Northern_Irish: "The result of the debate was Rename all." -- Mais oui! 09:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Northern Ireland cheeses Carina22 15:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Clearly the standard name in the parent cat. Vegaswikian 19:54, 15 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 15:51, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Who decides what is vibrant or not? A category without a clear criteria for inclusion is generally not a good idea. Qutezuce 06:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - only two articles in this category and both are also members of Category:Winnipeg. Green Giant 11:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Osomec 16:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Street Districts in Winnipeg. Street districts are distinct from neighbourhoods in that they are shopping and retail destinations. There are a few other districts that can be added. Provencher and Sargent could be considered. lee_haber8 1:32 7 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Why would this be preferable to Category:Winnipeg neighbourhoods, which would be similar to Category:Toronto neighbourhoods and Category:Montreal neighbourhoods? - EurekaLott 03:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per lee_haber8's suggestion. BrownHairedGirl 22:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Ardenn 06:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 12:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I don't know Winnipeg, but it sounds more like a category for nightlife districts than shopping districts. Better to get rid of it and start again. Carina22 15:56, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• It's not really Wikipedia's place to distinguish vibrant districts of a city from non-vibrant ones. Either Category:Winnipeg or Category:Winnipeg neighbourhoods will suffice. Delete or rename to Category:Winnipeg neighbourhoods. Bearcat 19:12, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Category:Winnipeg is sufficient. Powers 00:16, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete or rename, as per Bearcat's suggestions. Skeezix1000 13:42, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Too minor a category to have any encyclopedic value. I wouldn't object to the proposed renaming to Category:Winnipeg neighbourhoods if it goes that way. — GrantNeufeld 03:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per nomination. Alan Liefting 07:36, 13 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 14:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This well-populated category had an identity crisis because half its entries should have been in Category:Puzzle computer and video games while the others were various kinds of Category:Puzzles which editors had decided were in some sense games and were therefore "puzzle games". I went through and recategorized all its contents a few days ago, which is why it's now empty apart from the cruft that has accumulated since. I believe that the term "puzzle game" doesn't have any commonly accepted, useful, well-defined meaning except "puzzle computer/video game" so the only legitimate function of a category with this title would be to duplicate Category:Puzzle computer and video games. — Blotwell 06:08, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Support, with the caveat that I'm way too close to this subject matter to be unbiased. Here's why I think this is right: Most computer games are solo, so puzzles are very common tests of skill. Most tabletop games are multiplayer, where puzzles are less useful. So there's a lot of well-known puzzle computer games, and far fewer known tabletop puzzle games.-- Mike Selinker 07:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: There are, however, a few non-computer games that are clearly "puzzle games". Most people know of Master Mind. Others like Code 777 are clearly centered on solving a puzzle, and some like Scrabble are based on existing puzzle formats. But I'm not sure that any except MM and S are notable by WP's standards, and two entries don't seem like enough to justify having a second category. Weak support for the proposed deletion, since the existing categories are sufficient and this one would be mostly duplication. Barno 21:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Comment (by nom) It's worse than that: there are numerous non-computer games that could be called puzzle games: for example solitaire or Dingbats (and others of that wave of "board" games that involve drawing a card and solving the puzzle on it). These are all games with some puzzle aspects: they might suitably belong both in a "games" category and a "puzzles" category, but there isn't really a unifying characteristic to justify classifying them together. And that's just my opinion: what was in the cat before I emptied it was not these, but a ragbag of poorly-chosen things like Rush Hour (board game) (definitely a puzzle and not a game, IMO).

In some sense I wouldn't mind recreating one or more very similar categories to hold all these things: the problem is just that with the name "puzzle games" everyone seems to mean something different by it, so it's unmaintainable. — Blotwell 02:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- G Rutter 16:00, 8 March 2006 (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 consensous. -- TexasAndroid 15:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a U.S. category, but the term is also used in the UK and very likely in other countries with a culturally dominant largest city, such as France. Bhoeble 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as above. Bhoeble 06:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as Category:Regional theatre with subcategory Category:Regional theatre in the United States as at this moment. David Kernow 17:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Amendment Oh dear. That doesn't seem like a good idea at all. The phrase may exist, but that doesn't mean that it should be encouraged as a method of categorisation on a global basis. I certainly wouldn't want to see it applied to the UK (thinking about it "provincial theatre" is probably a more common term in the UK, not that I would want to see a UK category with that designation created either) . Therefore I would now like to see category:Regional theatre Deleted. It may be that the U.S. category should be deleted as well, but it should be left to Americans to decide whether it is useful or not. Bhoeble 18:26, 7 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This category is unneeded because the Basin Electric Power Cooperative article only lists two such subsidaries. A category that could only ever have two articles in it is unnecessary, in my opinion. -- Matth e wUND^{( talk)} 05:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - the two subsidiaries are listed in the main Basin Electric Power Cooperative article so no need for a category, unless of course they form several more subsidiaries. Green Giant 11:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Category:Basin Electric and put it as a subcategory of Category:Electric power companies. In a more general sense, I don't think there should be any "subsidiary" categories unless they are a subcategory of a category for the parent company. Gene Nygaard 15:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. At least for now. Vegaswikian 19:53, 15 March 2006 (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 consensous. -- TexasAndroid 15:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This nomination is for all such namings at Category:Trade unions by country. It would be more correct to have these categories listed as "Trade unions in Foo", rather than "Fooian(?) trade unions", as there are unions which operate in several countries (eg. AFL-CIO). It also appears to be the more common naming convention. Bookandcoffee 05:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose It is not the more common naming convention. Few trade unions are international and a separate category can be created for them if necessary. Bhoeble 06:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment You got me curious - so I went and counted them. There are 176 sub-cats at Category:Categories by country, and this is the breakdown:
  • 130 list as "Economy of Canada", or "Botanical gardens in India".
  • 30 list as "Canadian law" or "German beer".
  • 7 were a mixture of methods.
  • 4 were other sorts of cats, that may or may not belong were they are.

I know, it only adds up to 171. Somewhere I missplaced 5. :) This was a 10 minute project on the back of a sheet of paper... but the ratio is pretty clear. I'm not interested in moving them all to the same format. I just want to establish what it's going to be for the trade unions, so I can finish adding countries. -- Bookandcoffee 07:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose The ratios are irrelevant as the form used for each topic area is decided on a case by case basis. And the result would have been very different if you had counted all the categories for people and those in Category:Categories by nationality Osomec 16:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • But this is "Trade unions by country" - not "Trade unions by nationality". I agree that these things are case by case. My main thought in changing this was centered on the idea that the categories are used to address trade unions that operate in a country, not trade unions that are a part of a country. In the example above, the AFL-CIO is listed in both Category:Canadian trade unions and Category:United States labor unions - but you wonld never say that the AFL-CIO is a Canadian trade union. Other examples of cross border unions are the NUJ and the IBEW.-- Bookandcoffee 18:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I didn't say it is trade unions by nationality, but the holes in your data needed to be pointed out as you appeared to be making a false suggestion that a certain naming style should be mandatory on the basis of incomplete information. The vast majority of unions are national because each country has its own labour laws. Organisations should be categorised by where they are based because otherwise some could end up in far too many categories. International categories are used to cover international organisations. Osomec 19:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
      • Well, I don't see any manditory claims being made here, but my data was certainly incomplete. :) Category:International union federations is for the ICFTU, and WFTU, etc. who are international federations, and they would not be listed in each country. The only crossover that would occur already occurs - the "national level" union centers such as the AFL-CIO are already listed in their appropriate national categories. I'm just saying the name of the category should reflect the fact that they are not necessarily country specific.-- Bookandcoffee 20:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
        • International federations and international unions are not the same thing. You can create a category for the latter if you think it is necessary. Osomec 23:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
          • I don't think it's necessary - that's why I'm here! :) This change is nothing more than an attempt to recognise that unions already listed in the category are not defined by that particular country. i.e. Trade unions in Canada are not all Canadian trade unions.-- Bookandcoffee 00:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Support makes sense. Although should it be Category:Trade unions of Canada or Category:Trade unions in Canada ? - FrancisTyers 19:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose If this mainly about Canada, create Category:International trade unions operating in Canada or the like. As a general principle "in" categories should only by applied to physical objects which are "in" a particular place. This is especially crucial in my specialist area of companies, where a couple of attempts to create "in" categories have been nipped in the bud to prevent some companies being added to the 200 or so countries in which they operate. Carina22 16:01, 8 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 15:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

The former category seems to duplicate the purpose of the latter. I suggest merging. -- EmperorBMA| 話す 03:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. The former is about the process, while the latter covers individual spacecraft. Splitting remote sensing and satellite meteorology into individual categories may be worthwhile, since remote sensing is a broader topic. - EurekaLott 03:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as per EurekaLott. David Kernow 16:06, 9 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 15:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This category seems fairly ill-considered. The trilogy it categorizes spells from doesn't appear to have an article ( Bartimaes Trilogy). Even if it did, separate articles for the spells is itself a bad idea. There's currently one article in the category, and it is up for deletion ( Black Tumbler). NickelShoe 03:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nom. Powers 12:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Speedy Delete Misspelled. Should be Bartimaeus trilogy. Category:Bartimaeus Trilogy should probably be decapped. Septentrionalis 21:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Thanks for finding that. NickelShoe 15:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nom. Alan Liefting 06:47, 15 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 15:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

This category was created first, and no one complained about it two months ago. ( Ibaranoff24 03:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)) reply

• Delete Not a primary characteristic. Some articles will end up with dozens of categories if this is widely copied. Bhoeble 06:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Just because no one noticed it for two months among the mountains of Wikipedia pages, that doesn't equate it with acceptance. This simply appears to be one overzealous fan's personal likes. See further reasoning below under the equally-a-stretch Bakshi category. — Tenebrae 08:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not a good precedent for categorisation. -- Ryano 11:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete If it's important information, make a list. We can't have every person in Hollywood categorized as working with every other person in Hollywood (as useful as that would be for playing Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon). There comes a point where having too much information is worse than having not enough. This is one of those cases. Powers 12:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Bad precedent. Osomec 16:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Bhoeble. And how nightmarish will it be when someone creates Category:People who worked with Kevin Bacon? Deborah-jl _Talk 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Bad precedent. BrownHairedGirl 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Bad precedent. Carlossuarez46 17:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This is why David Lynch has links and categories. Septentrionalis 21:54, 10 March 2006 (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. -- TexasAndroid 15:18, 15 March 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete. How about "People who worked with Mark Hamill" or "Thomas Edison" or "Pol Pot" or...

• Comment - I created the category in response to finding the category Category:People who worked with David Lynch. If my category gets deleted, delete this one, too -- the Lynch category was created first. ( Ibaranoff24 02:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)) reply
• Delete per nom. Staecker 02:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- This is a good idea for several reasons: Memory. Let's say you want to read about the vocalist who sang the Twin Peaks theme, but you can't recall her name. This makes it possible to locate her quickly. Also, not everyone is credited. Bakshi talks about Wally Wood on DVD extra of WIZARDS, but there is no credit to Wood in the film's credits. Only by reading obscure articles would someone know that Wood had worked for Bakshi. Susan Tyrrell asked that she not be credited for her narration of WIZARDS because she thought it would be a setback to her acting career; because of the curiosity about the film's narration, she later talked about what a mistake she had made in removing her name. Edward Norton did extensive work on the FRIDA screenplay but Writer's Guild rules kept him from being credited. These are just examples to indicate how this type of listing can provide valuable information. In some cases, the info that someone worked for a certain person might exist only in a single, forgotten interview on TV or in a magazine. Pepso 04:30, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Use google for that sort of thing. If this system is taken to the extremes you are suggesting the number of categories on some articles might reach hundreds, most of them meaningless to most people. The category system is a navigation tool, not a search engine. Bhoeble 06:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I don't know, that seems like it might be more logical as a list. But I don't know if people might want to delete the list too. NickelShoe 04:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not a primary characteristic. Some articles will end up with dozens of categories if this is widely copied. Bhoeble 06:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete This seems frivolous, and could open up an endless string of "Category:People who worked with Rodney Dangerfield", or "Category:People punched out by Frank Sinatra", or "Category:People quoted as liking The Beatles". Like Bakshi, those are notable celebrities. Where do you draw the line? — Tenebrae 08:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not a good precedent for categorisation. I would support deleting the David Lynch one too. -- Ryano 11:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Bad precedent. Osomec 16:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Bhoeble Deborah-jl _Talk 16:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Bad precedent, as per Bhoeble. BrownHairedGirl 22:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Bad precedent as per the prior. Carlossuarez46 17:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, even though I created the category. ( Ibaranoff24 06:05, 10 March 2006 (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.