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 ?¿? 07:11, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply

This category is unuseful since it is impossible to differentiate between acoustic and electric guitarists since (almost) all guitarists can lay both and often play both. There are no articles in this category, which is also uncategorized.-- Carabinieri 22:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

moved from wrong CFD day ∞ Who ?¿? 01:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• It's not uncategorized; it has two parent cats and it has contained a couple of articles for a couple of weeks. The more specific parent is Category:Guitarists by style and its other subcats are reasonably well populated. My feeling is we should keep and populate with those who are primarily known for their acoustic play. I'm persuadable though, especially since Category:Electric guitarists is redlinked (and an alarming name). - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • Siafu's reasoning is much better than mine, so Delete, per siafu. - Splash ^talk 00:36, 13 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. It seems that "style" as indicated by Category:Guitarists by style is not informed by the instrument. Intuitively, Category:Classical guitarists would be a subcat of Acoustic, and Category:Jazz guitarists would have to be split up to fit into this or the potential Category:Electric guitarists. I'm guessing that Category:Flamenco guitarists would suffer one or the other of those fates, as well (though I have no idea if there are any Flamenco guitarists who "play the guitar electric"). siafu 04:16, 10 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 Rename. ∞ Who ?¿? 07:08, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply

To match the terminology agreed to for its subcats (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 25). -- Rick Block ( talk) 14:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename Bhoeble 19:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 20:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nom and previous. - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 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 Rename per Hiding. ∞ Who ?¿? 07:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Category is about the Position/Office/Job. It should include specific individuals (i.e. specific presidents, past & present). It also includes, however, info about the presidency. Markles 13:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Comment Perhaps then we should create a Category:Presidential office in the United States to hold this category and remove info about the presidency from Category:Presidents of the U.S., which could then be renamed Category:Presidents of the United States. Hiding talk 18:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Agree with Hiding. -- Reinyday, 20:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• What Hiding said. We should certainly have the presidents in a cat of their own. - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per Hiding. - TexasAndroid 11:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per Hiding. Bhoeble 12:59, 8 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Hiding, though shouldn't Category:Presidential office in the United States be Category:Executive office in the United States? Or should Presidential (and VP, and Cabinet) be a subcat of Executive, Senatorial and Congressional Representative under Legislative, Supreme Court and Appelate Court under Judicial? -- Kgf0 22:50, 12 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Comment: to use the usual term, the new category should be Category:Presidency of the United States. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:58, 14 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 SPEEDY RENAME per new rule #4. Splash ^talk 16:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to the "in" form which is standard for categories for buildings. CalJW 12:04, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Hiding talk 19:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 20:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per the new #4, I believe. - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • I disapprove of rule 4 and will never use it. CalJW 05:59, 7 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 SPEEDY RENAME per new rule #4. Splash ^talk 16:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

The content is currently at "Korean history" but I can find no previous discussion. It is true that Korea is split into two states at present (see the nominations below) but this is still more the history of a nation than of an ethnic group. I've moved it to category:History by country and I think it should use the standard format for subcategories of that category. There are only 5 other categories in Category:History by ethnic group and the groups in question are all less closely aligned with particular states than the Koreans are. The main article is History of Korea. So merge into category:History of Korea. CalJW 11:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Speedy per the new #4. - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 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 SPEEDY RENAME per new rule #4. Splash ^talk 16:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to the standard form category:History of North Korea. CalJW 10:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Hiding talk 19:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 20:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per the new #4. - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 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 SPEEDY RENAME per new rule #4. Splash ^talk 16:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Rename to the standard form category:History of South Korea. CalJW 10:12, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Hiding talk 19:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 20:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy per the new #4. - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 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 Rename. ∞ Who ?¿? 06:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply

These are actually subdivisions, not settlements, and should therefore take the "of" form. Indeed they cover those parts of the Philippines which are not cities, so I suspect that the majority of them are rural. Having looking at many countries now, I can say that this usage of "municipality" is the usual one. In the English speaking world "municipality" is little used as an official designation, but the word is associated with urbanism. However, in the rest of the world, where the term, or its local equivalent, is widely used, there is no connection with urbanism whatsoever. Rename. CalJW 09:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Hiding talk 19:08, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Rename. -- Reinyday, 20:26, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 06:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply

Inherently POV. It's often said one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist and that is the problem with this category. Not nearly objective enough to be encyclopedic. gren グレン 08:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Oh dear, no. - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete Hopelessly POV. - TexasAndroid 12:57, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No argument. siafu 04:17, 10 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 Defer to discussion. See closure note. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply

These three changes are to conform to the naming convention used for the subcategories of Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. If you would like to propose renaming all of the subcategories, please contribute to the discussion at Category talk:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives#Renaming. Please do not propose renaming all subcategories here. Third time's the charm! -- Reinyday, 01:30, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. I've contributed on the other page to say that they should all be expanded, and I wasn't the first to do so. I hope we can move on to expand them all shortly. CalJW 10:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

U.S. Representatives from _____ is the format used for nearly every state (see Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives by state). I created the latter not realizing the former existed, since it is not a subcategory of Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives. Merge Category:U.S. Congressmen from Wisconsin into Category:U.S. Representatives from Wisconsin and delete. -- Reinyday, 00:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• For all categories nominated for renaming above: shouldn't U.S. be unabbreviated? Aecis 07:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Unabbreviate all CalJW 10:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Oppose: Unabbreviation is a good idea. However, a "Member of the United States House of Representatives" is not the same thing as a "United States Representative." A United States Representative can be someone, for example, who represents the US in foreign negotiations. I understand that "Member of the United States House of Representatives from Foo" is clumsy, but "United States Representative from Foo" is incorrect. Can we find a better rename? ( Markles 13:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)) reply

  Oppose per Markles. Support renaming to Category:Foo Representatives to the United States House of Representatives It may be clunky, but it seems the shortest grammatically correct term that avoids abbreviations. I am unsure on the use of from foo as I am unsure of the possibility that a representative may be from one state but represent another. Hiding talk 19:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose since we don't keep acronyms no matter how many times we are told the others can't be renamed (since they can and should be) and for the reasons that Markles gives. - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply

To continue this discussion on renaming all 50 states, please see Category talk:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives#Renaming. To vote for or against making these 4 categories match the existing 46 categories, please vote below: -- Reinyday, 20:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Rename these 4 per nom to conform to current naming scheme. The other discussion may later yield a different rename for all the categories, but no reason why these 4 need to be different now. HollyAm 23:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Expand the acronyms and oppose and rename that does not do so. Or, alternatively, ditch this CfD, the earlier ones too and just do the job properly! Nominate all 50 in an umbrella and expand the acronyms in one fell swoop. We have bots that can deal with the outcome in a matter of an hour or two. - Splash ^talk 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
  • This has been tried twice before, both resulting in no consensus. Hence I have proposed people discuss this issue on the talk page. Please feel free to see the deletion logs for 06 September 2005 and 27 September 2005. Please allow these four categories to conform to the other 46 while the other discussion is occurring. -- Reinyday, 23:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
• Defer as per Splash. Let's do this properly. Hiding talk 12:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• Closing note Although there was a consensus to unabbrv, it would be pointless to do these now, whilest the others remains U.S. There is no consensus to change to any specific format. Please contribute to the discussion given to form a consensus, and bring back to cfd. ∞ Who ?¿? 21:15, 14 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. ∞ Who ?¿? 06:48, 14 October 2005 (UTC) reply

These two categories should be merged together. I don't particularly care which one is merged into the other, although Category:District of Columbia is much less populated, and was created very recently. dbenbenn | talk 00:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC) reply

• Oppose: Much of the history of the city of Washington is not relevant to the history of the District of Columbia. The separate category allows inclusion of parts of Virginia in the District category without confusion with the otherwise unrelated city of Washington. ( SEWilco 02:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)) reply
• Oppose: I agree with User:SEWilco's reason. As a side note, residents of DC prefer to stress the District of Columbia part of their home's name over the Washington part. Although their opinion isn't binding here (their opinion isn't even binding on their own government, but that's a different article), it should be considered. ( Markles 13:07, 6 October 2005 (UTC)) reply
• Oppose. I agree with the above reasons. Vegaswikian 01:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC) reply
• OPPOSE because the history of DC is much greater than the history of Washington. We could just delete the history of Washington and merge it into the District's history cat, if you think that having two categories is too much for you. 132.205.93.89 22:37, 7 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.