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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Not much use. MeltBanana 23:48, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge/delete as the only entry is a film (but if properly used this category would be a duplicate of category:Cinema of Japan rather than Category:Japanese films). CalJW 02:30, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge per CalJW (titles are not quite analogous). siafu 18:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:10, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Obviously a merger is needed here, but I think all the articles should go into Category:San Diego, California so it is consistent with other cat names. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge CalJW 02:31, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge per nom. - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge. No argument. siafu 18:25, 1 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 18:36, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to Category:Wikipedia Advogato users. R adiant _>|< 22:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Keep as is: Bloody pointless Kafkaesque workout in process this attempt at providing community information is going though. No reason for rename offered, only visible change is to create work, longer URLs and double redirects. --- Charles Stewart 00:47, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep as is. I agree with Charles. The category system is based on the Babel category system for "en". -- Tony Sidaway ^Talk 18:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:09, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

To follow the naming normally used for most airlines in a country and to match parent category. Vegaswikian 22:04, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename to standard. CalJW 02:23, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and standard. - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete and put all contents under Cat:Airlines, and treat all other Defunct cats the same. The whole "defunct" segregation system is silly-looking, requires constant monitoring of all Cats containing things which could become "defunct" (incl. people, places) and relocation of "defuncts" when they occur, is not an encyclopedic standard of historic record-keeping, and reflects blatantly the genex POV towards "dead people" et al. 12.73.194.157 15:44, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per anon; this is a good point. We don't seperate people categories by being alive or dead for the same maintenance reasons, and IMO it's more confusing and less useful to have to search through two categories ("active" and "defunct") to find an airline. Users looking for information on an airline obviously don't know everything about it, like whether it's active or not. The defunct/active distinction works well for lists, but is not helpful for categories. siafu 18:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • P.S., if there's no consensus to delete, consider my vote a Rename to fit the standard. siafu 18:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
  • If there is an objection to keeping defunct at all, then it should probably be discussed outside of this one nomination. That's a major policy question for a dedicated discussion. It impacts too much to make a decision here. Vegaswikian 05:43, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:04, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Broader category. MeltBanana 22:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose Fishing is not a branch of agriculture in everyday British English. Perhaps it is by some academic definition, but the category system is a navigation tool for the ordinary reader. CalJW 02:25, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Break up category into Category:Agricultural occupations, Category:Fisheries occupations and Category:Forestry occupations. As it stands, it's a rather oddball category. There's minimal overarching interconnectedness between the three fields, and zero fuzziness in terms of which occupation fits where. - The Tom 06:16, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Break it up per The Tom, I think. It seems odd to categorise those three things together, really. - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have not real interest in how these are classified I was just bringing rather mixed up cats to wider attention. It should be noted that there are no fishing occupations in the cat, Fisherman is located elsewhere. The description in Category:Agriculture seems to allow Category:Forestry occupations to be a subcat of Category:Agricultural occupations. MeltBanana 01:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Divide per The Tom, but "Fisheries occupations" would be better as Category:Aquaculture occupations. siafu 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• I've relocated the forestry occupations into Category:Forestry occupations, and seeing as there are no fisheries occupations in the category, I now say rename the remainder so they're consolidated into Category:Agricultural occupations - The Tom 18:34, 5 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 14:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

To follow the naming normally used for most airlines in a country. Vegaswikian 21:57, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename to standard form. CalJW 02:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and standard. - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename, and I think what Splash means is that "Airlines of foo" should be established as the convention for by-coutry subcats (actually sub-subcats in this case) of Category:Airlines at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). -- Rick Block ( talk) 18:46, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 18:37, 1 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 15:01, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

These companies increasingly provide services which do not involve the use of a telephone, eg cable TV and broadband. This is a subcategory of category:Telecommunications and most of its own subcategories use "Telecommunications". Rename Category:Telecommunications companies. CalJW 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nominator, and cower in horror at the state of Category:Telecommunications. - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 22:19, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Equatorial Guinean sportspeople -- Kbdank71 15:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Complex cat for one man. Dunno which is best but Category:Equatoguinean people exists and Category:Equatorial Guinean people doesn't. MeltBanana 20:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename. Ah, but Eric the Eel is a complex guy. - The Tom 06:24, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Do not rename. I would have absolutely not a prayer of ever finding the category under the new name. A good reason to avoid naming occupations after nationalities. - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment. The CIA world factbook (which has been wrong on this account before) has both "Equatoguinean" and "Equatorial Guinean" as adjectives, and Equatorial Guinea does not use either. Is there some other reason to choose one over the other? If not, I'm leaning towards agreement with Splash. siafu 22:24, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Seems both are correct.. make either one a {{ categoryredirect}} to the other. — Insta ntnood 20:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename - There are categories "American actors", "American screenwriters" etc. Darwinek 19:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename for consistency and normal usage. Bhoeble 20:51, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Let's hope we can get a few of these through now. CalJW 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Daring, I daresay. - The Tom 23:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 13:54, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose. Naming by nationality leads to confusion as in the above example, and we shuoldn't shoulder ourselves with a naming scheme that works in some, but not all cases when there is a perfectly good alternative available. Rename to Category:Film directors from the United States or "of" or something. - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename common usage and consistent. Hiding talk 14:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Hiding. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Film directors of the United States. siafu 22:25, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. JW 12:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename - There are categories "American actors", "American screenwriters" etc. Darwinek 19:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename for consistency and normal usage. Bhoeble 20:52, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Let's hope we can get a few of these through now. CalJW 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename Daring, I daresay. - The Tom 23:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 13:55, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
• Oppose as above. - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename common usage and consistent. Hiding talk 14:05, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• OPPOSE use Category:Film producers of the United States instead 132.205.46.167 00:51, 31 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Hiding. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:21, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Film producers of the United States. siafu 22:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. JW 12:30, 2 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 16:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

These categories cover almost exactly the same thing, and should be merged. - SimonP 16:34, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Merge both into category:Telecommunications companies of Canada of Canada to agree with most of the national categories in category:Telephone companies, which I am am going to nominate for renaming itself. CalJW 21:02, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Telecomms. - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge as proposed due to the fact that these categories effectively duplicate each other; note that there are a couple of instances ( Grip Ltd., Category:Canadian cable and DBS companies, etc.) where the redundant category should probably be removed rather than replaced with the new one, since they don't really fit Category:Telephone companies. Bearcat 05:41, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Merge to Telecommunications. siafu 22:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:10, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Exists only as a redirect to the Shona language article; seems to have little potential for growth; incorrectly capitalized per Wikipedia conventions. -- Dvyost 16:21, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete CalJW 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete, presumably a mistaken use of a category? - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 22:50, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

(second try, see previous discussion) With one or two other exceptions all sports venues categories now follow X in country naming format consistent with the man-made objects in country convention described at wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). Propose renaming all subcats of Category:Football (soccer) venues by country from Nationality <specific name varies> to <specific name varies> in Country and establishing the in Country format as the standard on the conventions page. Individual articles are not yet tagged with cfru (will be if there are no violent objections). -- Rick Block ( talk) 15:09, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply

They're all tagged now. -- Rick Block ( talk) 23:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment While I can see us varying Football/Soccer by country based on local usage, might it make more sense to standardize the nouns, too? While there's an element of local usage in effect there, too (ie, "grounds" isn't in use in the states), I see "stadia" versus "stadiums" versus "fields" versus "grounds" versus "pitches" versus "venues" as an issue where there often aren't clear terms associated with countries. I'm going to propose all going to the format category:[Football OR Soccer] venues in Fooland - The Tom 15:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Please do not make them all say "soccer". Honbicot 18:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nominator, and establish the convention. - Splash ^talk 23:26, 20 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. No argument. siafu 02:24, 21 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• NOTE: The subcats were not tagged for renaming. I'm leaving this open for another seven days. -- Kbdank71 14:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename with caution. Only the U.S., Canada, Puerto Rico and South Africa should use the word "soccer". CalJW 17:11, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • There's an argument that Ireland should also be considered a "soccer" nation, in light of Gaelic football being "football" in common parlance. See The Irish Times, RTE. - The Tom 17:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
    • An argument for another time perhaps, but all the subcategories and articles in category:Republic of Ireland football use "football", not "soccer". If you want them renamed, you can do a group renaming nomination separately. This current process should not create inconsistency where there was none before. CalJW 21:18, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
      • A fair point. Football it is. - The Tom 23:00, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename to <anything without parentheses> in <country>. R adiant _>|< 22:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename from Fooian something venues to Something venues in Foo. Nominate football or soccer separately, if that's necessary. — Insta ntnood 06:26, 29 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as above. - Splash ^talk 01:26, 30 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment Please do use the term "soccer" User:Tancred
• Rename to <specific name varies> in <Country>. Carioca 04:47, 3 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 mergeas nominated -- Kbdank71 14:58, 7 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Landscape architect is the preferred term for the profession. Landscape design is a redirect to Landscape architecture for the same reason. Supergolden 12:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Merge per article title. siafu 22:59, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was rename as nominated -- Kbdank71 16:21, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

In accordance with the move of Category:World War II Japanese ships to Category:World War II ships of Japan below, to make it consistant with other categories in the military equipment and ship categories, the following sub categories should also be moved:

• Category:World War II Japanese battleships to Category:World War II battleships of Japan
• Category:World War II Japanese cruisers to Category:World War II cruisers of Japan
• Category:World War II Japanese aircraft carriers to Category:World War II aircraft carriers of Japan (This one was already tagged)
• Category:World War II Japanese destroyers to Category:World War II destroyers of Japan
• Category:World War II Japanese submarines to Category:World War II submarines of Japan

Merge all Joshbaumgartner 09:35, 28 October 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 15:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This category should have been deleted when the successful vote and discussion took place to delete Category:Ashkenazi Jews, see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 1#Category:Ashkenazi Jews [1] for that vote and reasons. IZAK 07:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete as explained above. IZAK 07:25, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete per previous CfD. siafu 23:18, 1 November 2005 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- Kbdank71 15:24, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

This is a very confusing addition to Category:Wikipedia cleanup categories. It is a subcategory for all subcategories of its parent that have subcategories. I think the children of this category should just be listed in the parent. If they are notable because they are super-bloated, then they can be mentioned in the introduction. -- Beland 04:15, 28 October 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 15:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC) reply

Category consits of only 2 articles, and with the death of 2 members of the band it is highly unlikely any new albums will be created. In addition, many more popular bands with more albums do not have a category nor should the Traveling Wilburys.

• Keep - Categorizing albums by artist (see Category:Albums by artist) is a primary means of categorizing albums. Several such categories exist for artists with only a single album. There should really be a note about this in Wikipedia:Categorization (it comes up here fairly regularly). -- Rick Block ( talk) 03:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Keep There's nothing wrong with 2 (or 1) article categories, if they are part of a larger scheme. CalJW 17:08, 28 October 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.