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. Syrthiss 03:02, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This category is point of view. I don't see similar categories for other countries. Please delete. ReeseM 22:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Pov. Osomec 18:53, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, pov. R adiant _>|< 11:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete No problem. Golfcam 05:21, 26 January 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. Syrthiss 03:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Another misguided England category, unfortunately missed when several were nominated and deleted before. England has five sixths of the UK population and in the overwhelming majority of areas of life there are UK wide structures, not England-only ones. It contained firstly "transport in England", which ran to about 10 words, not counting headings, after three a half months so I have converted it into a redirect, and secondly the bridges category, which has other categories. There is no English transport system, no ministry, no regulatory bodies, no professional bodies, no road system, no rail system, no aviation system, no England wide but not UK wide operators etc etc etc. There is a British transport system, which is covered exhaustively in Category:Transport in the United Kingdom. On the one hand this is a pointless intermediate step, on the other is is worse than that because it is misleading to have a category which suggest that there is a specifically English transport system. Delete CalJW 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Delete As per nom. Valiantis 01:50, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete The user who created it early last month is now busy populating it, but the nominator is right, just because it can be populated, that doesn't mean it should be. Category:Transport in the United Kingdom is much better. This one is a bit of a mess and it duplicates a system which has been built up by many users, rather than just one user. ReeseM 04:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment I was aware that there are lots of roads and railway stations in England before the creator of this category belatedly started to populate it just when it was nominated for deletion. This action changes nothing. They are also in the UK, and it is more convenient to stick with UK categories. The transport enthusiasts have never seen the need to create a two tier system, and they were right not to do so. It doesn't help: many of the major articles belong in the UK category only, and it is much easier for the reader to have one category system to navigate than two. This applies especially to non-British users, who may not understand the subtleties. CalJW 05:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete It seems sensible to have a category to balance the Scottish one, but it isn't because England and Scotland are not symetrical. On the one hand Scotland has far more automony than England, but on the other it has a much smaller population than London. Honbicot 07:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete A mess. The UK category is well organised. Osomec 18:54, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Delete - I agree the UK category is better organised and likely to be more comprehensive. It also means articles are going to end up in four categories rather than one.- RXUYDC 01:53, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The nomination comment seems right. (Here from link in Talk:England#On-going deletion of England-related categories: Category:Transport in England.) User:Noisy | Talk 12:00, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep It is very hard to see what the problem is with this one. The proposer's statement "There is no English transport system" just seems bizarre. The country that initiated the industrial revolution and is one of the economic powerhouses of the world most certainly does have a transport system, and a very advanced and complex one, which would greatly benefit from some intelligent coverage, and indexing, here at Wikipedia. Incidentally, England also had a complex transport system well before it became part of the UK, eg Category:Ports and harbours of England has a natural home at this cat.-- Mais oui! 13:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • This is the category creator. I believe that far from creating the category out of a desire to provide better coverage of England (after all he only made a token effort to populate it before the nomination was made, as is usually the case when he creates an English category which no English user has felt a need for), he was prompted by a political point of view which was entirely to do with Scotland. No one has denied that there is transport in England, but Mais oui! prefers to ignore the issue of how it is organised. I believe that the agenda here is to use the category system to undermine the idea that the UK is a single state as much as as it possibly can, without regard to how things are actually organised in the real world. But the UK is a single state, many aspects of British life are organised on an all UK basis, or in England and Wales, with Scotland and Nothern Ireland having their own system, or in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland with only Scotland automonous. England is not an administrative entity in its own right. Before Mais oui!'s intervention the category system accurately reflected the real world, with separate English categories only where there really is a separate system, and for people and for physical entities which are clearly located in England. The country category system is based on states. I am far from being a hardliner here. I have voted with Mais oui! to keep separate categories for Scottish and English people. I am being moderate; I wish to have a category system which reflects the real world and is organised so as to provide easy access to articles for readers. This category does not do those things. CalJW 16:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• • • In order to avoid personal attacks, you would be far better concentrating on the issues, rather than some spurious conspiracy theory. My nationality, religion, ethnicity, gender, sexuality or political convictions are none of your business. Please display a little more respect for your fellow Wikipedians. I note that you failed to respond to my substantive points.-- Mais oui! 12:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • I have made a much more thorough case than you. The issues cannot be presented fully without a reference to the Scotland/England/UK issue and precedent makes it clear that you are likely to interpret any reference to it as a personal attack no matter how carefully it is worded. Your constant accusations that personal attacks are being made on you are incorrect. It is your actions which are objected to. CalJW 23:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
        • You've just done it again! Your immediate reaction when dealing with me in discussions is to always refer to me personally, my nationality, or my political beliefs, and not to the issues at hand. "Your constant accusations that personal attacks are being made on you are incorrect" Ideed? I don't recall ever accusing you of personal attacks in the past (let alone "constant"), although I have excellent grounds for doing so (eg. Category Talk:Cinema of England). You do constantly refer to my nationality, and try to use it as a weapon against me, probably with some success, which is, I assume, why you continue to do it. That is a crystal clear breach of Wikipedia rules. Stop it. You have come dangerously close to suggesting that only English people may get involved in the English categorisation, which is preposterous. You also regularly imply that I am not really interested in religion/archaelogy/cinema/economics/transport or whatever the topic at hand is. How on earth do you know that? All in all, your manner of dealing with me in discussions leaves an awful lot to be desired. Just try, please, being a little more civil. I don't want to be best buddies, but surely we can work alongside each other on a professional footing? Anyone who looks at my record here at Wikipedia will see that I am extremely hard-working and conscienscious, and I just do not deserve the low-level sneering from your direction. If any admins are reading this, I would appreciate their input.-- Mais oui! 12:08, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
          • Nor do I deserve attacks from you, which in the past has include huge coloured boxes rather like screamers from Harry Potter, which I have never seen anyone but you employ. As for the English point, at least one Scot and one (probable) American has already taken my side, and I have said more than once that it is paticicularly important to choose between English and UK categories appropriately to avoid confusing foreigners. CalJW 04:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete unhelpful way of organising info (and I'm Scots) . -- Doc ^ask? 23:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename 'transport in England and Wales'; I think the two generally work together but seperatly from the rest of the UK. Robdurbar 08:51, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That is an overgeneralisation, and it is not true of transport. The motorway system extends into Scotland, the aviation system applies to the whole of the UK, the rail system covers the whole of Great Britain (and Ireland has another) etc etc etc. It also doesn't fit the categorisation system. CalJW 08:57, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not useful. The UK is a state, England isn't. Bhoeble 12:24, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep England is a distinct entity within the United Kingdom, and if there are articles relative specifically to transport within its borders, then it is appropriate to sub-categorize them as such. The fact that England is the lion's share of the UK doesn't matter, for if Welsh, North Irish, and Scottish categories are appropriate (which I would say they are), then English categories are as well. Josh 23:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • But there aren't articles "relative specifically to transport within its borders", there are local articles (which already have the UK and city/county categories, which is enough) and there are British articles. CalJW 04:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete No problem. Golfcam 05:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. What exactly is the problem? Take another country as an example — I'm fairly certain that a notable number of delete votes here is on political grounds, i.e. "there is no separate English transport system" —: What's wrong with having a category "Transport in Austria", containing articles about transport in general, the ÖBB, international airports etc., and then subcategories (e.g. "Transport in Vienna", "Transport in Salzburg", ...) containing articles about intra-state transport issues? I really don't get arguments like "The UK is a state, England isn't.". Is there a policy somewhere which states "Transport in ..." categories must only use states for ...? If so, I apparently haven't read it yet. This has nothing to do with Scotland, IMO... shrugs — Nightstallion (?) 06:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

The comparison with Austria is a bad one and shows that you fail to understand the complexities of the case. The UK already has excellent national organisation of transport articles, and excellent local subcategorisation - probably more thorough than for any other country in the world. England is another tier in between this - there is simply no equivalent in Austria. As for politics, this goes against my own political preferences - it is based purely on a passion for having the most useful possible categorisation system, one which accurately reflects the world as it is, not as I might like it to be. CalJW 09:34, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I still consider the comparison with Austria to be viable, but I was not aware of an existant local subcategorisation system; could you point me towards it? Thanks. — Nightstallion (?) 09:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

See category:Transport in the United Kingdom by locality and Category:Transport in England by locality. The latter was created by Mais Qui!, and is not a useful subdivision in my opinion, but I have chosen not to nominate it as it is harmless compared to the main England category and I wish to be moderate. CalJW 09:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Proposal. Have a category for Transport in Britain / British Isles and then have subcats for Transport in Scotland, England, Isle of Man, etc. SilkTork 10:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That is exactly what we have now (if you look at cat:Transport in England you will see that it is, and always has been, a subcat of Cat:Transport in the United Kingdom). The proposer is wanting to get rid of that system and amalgamate the English cat into the UK one (which is already a huge cat), for reasons that have not really been made very clear. I repeat my request that an administrator steps in here, especially considering the unfortunate message that User:CalJW has deposited on my Talk page. The tone of this English cat deletion campaign is going from bad to worse.-- Mais oui! 12:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I see. I also now see the proposers point. The cat should be Transport in the British Isles, and the sub cats should be distinct regions within the British Isles that have a distinct transport system. Having a cat for transport in England is arbitrary because there is no distinct and discrete transport system in England, whereas there is a distinct and discrete transport system within the United Kingdom, and within the Isle of Man and Ireland and Jersey, etc. Anyone wanting to look for transport articles which relate to England can find it without difficulty within Transport in the United Kingdom. If there was something unique about the transport system within England which is different to transport within the UK then I could see the point, but this categorising is currently non-helpful and misleading. There would be more point in having subcats from the United Kingdom cat straight to local authority regions such as London Transport than having a cat in between. SilkTork 04:22, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep - having reviewed this, it seems a useful way of finding articles for those looking for transport matters relating to England, just as searching for other countries forming subcategories of Category:Transport in the United Kingdom by locality. To me, locality is a useful subcategory of Category:Transport in the United Kingdom which would become less useful if England were excluded. Logically, regions or counties of England would then become direct subcats by locality, and there would be no obvious grouping for things like canals which are logically associated with countries within the UK, but run across local boundaries. ..... dave souza 16:22, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Categories for England duplicate c. 83% of the contents of the UK category. Maybe 90% when overlapping items are taken into account. They aren't a sensible way to go. Carina22 19:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete England does not have a distinct transport system whereas UK does. Subcats, if needed, should go to distinct regions such as London Transport. See main argument above. SilkTork 04:26, 27 January 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. Syrthiss 03:01, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This is a not very famous league so it should be spelled out in full. Golfcam 19:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename Golfcam 19:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Maybe we should think about expanding the speedy criteria. Simply expanding an abbreviation does not always create the ideal name, but it is nearly always an improvement. Perhaps a limit could be set on the number of words allowed post speedy expansion, so the really long ones would have to be reviewed individually. 05:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

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. Syrthiss 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

I started this cat, but made another per naming conventions, Category:Orders of columns, and emptied this one.-- Bkwillwm 16:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Speedy CalJW 21:33, 20 January 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 all. Syrthiss 03:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Consistency with others in its parent category, Category:Wikipedia templates. Would be okay instead to rename it to Category:Wikipedia:Navigational templates, but I think just Category:Navigational templates would be more consistent. — Markles 12:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Also rename:

• Category:United States Navigation boxes to Category:United States Navigational boxes and
• Category:United States Government Navigation boxes to Category:United States Government Navigational boxes. — Markles 12:00, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename but without the capital Ns which would be a breach of the capitalisation policy. Osomec 18:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Good point! I agree with Osomec— remove the capital Ns. — Markles 22:46, 22 January 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. Syrthiss 02:57, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This category should be re-named in line with the other Politician categories. The stub category is oddly named as well, so I've listed that at WP:WSS. Valentinian 08:44, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per other Filipino categories. Bhoeble 14:55, 20 January 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. Syrthiss 02:56, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Empty category left over from before the VfD->AfD rename. I could speedy, but I'm new to CFD, so I thought I'd take it the slow-and-steady way, just to be sure. ^demon 05:46, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Empty. Bhoeble 14:55, 20 January 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. Syrthiss 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Another abbreviation which should be expanded to improve clarity and presentation. Rename Choalbaton 05:41, 20 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename CalJW 05:43, 21 January 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 consensus, again.. Syrthiss 02:52, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

This category cannot be made NPOV. It is naturally defined by the POV of the Roman Catholic Church. Delete entirely. SwissCelt 04:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Delete Too loaded a term to use as a category name. Choalbaton 05:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, inherent POV. R adiant _>|< 11:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Note that there was a previous CFD which ended without consensus. Possibly a rename to clarify whose heresies these are would be a solution? — sjorford (talk) 10:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: At that point, though, do we allow each religious organization to have its own category for its respective "heresies"? Anything short of that would be POV. Doing that would be cumbersome, and would quickly lose its utilitarian value as a set of categories. Besides, I doubt you can achieve NPOV by allowing all possible sides the opportunity to have their own POV categories. -- SwissCelt 21:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per SwissCelt ReeseM 05:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, the concept of heresy is an important part in many religions. One religion's heresy is another religion's orthodoxy. Simply expand the content to show what is considered heretical in various belief systems. The only reason why "heresy" is up for deletion seems to be because of a POV of the petitioner. The Christian list isn't just that of the "Roman" Catholic Church, but it is the same list as Eastern Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Presbyterians, and all other Nicene Creed/mainstream Christians. Perhaps what needs to be done is expand and edit. Deletion would be overkill.

• Comment: Please see my above comment. Because one religion's heresy is another religion's orthodoxy, the category properly populated would become meaningless for categorisation. In addition, the POV of the petitioner (namely me) doesn't matter: The fact that a POV is evident at all for the category is reason enough. Besides, I doubt you've ascertained my POV, thank you very much. -- SwissCelt 03:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Then we should get rid of all articles on religion then, since all are going to be POV somewhere and somehow. It isn't POV that Nicene Creed/mainstream Christians believe that, say, Arianism is a heresy. That's a fact that they believe that. If that isn't allowed to be displayed on wikipedia, then that devalues the usefulness of wikipedia. If it is suppose to be a factual reference on all topics possible, then all information needs to be provided. The aspect of heresy is a vital part of theology. To be rid of it does a great disservice.

• Keep or rename. This category is useful in some form, because many older texts talk of sects only in a heretical sense; there is no other category for many such sects (I know because I've created over a dozen articles on these kinds of sects). The category could do with some more specific subcategories, but that's no reason to delete the whole thing. This category is for sects/denominations officially deemed heretical by the church under which they are a denomination. — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2006-01-22 04:38

• Keep Sometimes POV is the point: That the American Revolution was fought against what was perceived as "tyranny" is critical to understanding that war, even though whether it was actually tyranny or not is clearly POV. Similarly, Gnosticism, Arianism, etc. have had a profound impact on this historically important institution called Christianity and Catholicism, although in many cases they themselves have disappeared (there aren't many Donatists around anymore, but Augustine's reaction to them created the theology of grace behind much modern Christian thinking, etc.). Perhaps an explanation of the idea of heresy with links to individual entries "classed by Catholics as heresies" and a note in those entries that, "Arianism was condemned by the Council of Nicaea in 325 and as such is considered by Christians to be a heresy."
• Delete The previous unsigned keep vote exposes several of the reasons for deletion. The category system is unsubtle - all you see at the bottom of the article is one hissing word "HERESY!" Sumahoy 05:37, 22 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, that's why it makes sense to rename it. Deletion makes no sense. — ₀₉₁₈ ^BRIAN • 2006-01-23 07:17

• The idea is intriguing, but to what would we rename it? Also bear in mind that it's the category which I've nominated for deletion, not the corresponding article. I agree that the article serves a useful purpose in explaining the history of heresies in shaping their respective religions (most notably Christianity). However, the utility of this term in categorisation is dubious. Shall we place Christianity itself in a category marked, "Ideas which atheists denounce"? Or worse, "Thought systems debunked by science"? That's essentially what "heresy" or other like-named categories do to the articles so categorised. (This is a comment.) -- SwissCelt 07:28, 23 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Rename or move things to a subcategory called something like Christian or Catholic Heresies. It doesn't seem to have any non-christian content, and people will probably be interested in heresies within a specific religous tradition instead of in general anyway. It's not POV since by definition heresy is defined by the "orthodox" sect, and there is no substantial disagreement about what sects or doctrines are considered heresy by different religious traditions. Heresies are interesting for other reasons besides their impact on the orthodox position, they have also been historically important, and are often tied to political movements. Finally most if not all heresies have been hugely influenced by oposition to and from the establishment, their categorization as heresies is an integral part of how they are viewed. -- Ruhib 07:05, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Pov. Pro-Roman Catholic. Golfcam 05:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep, cleanup and rename; the majority of articles in this category cover antechalcedonian theological strains—it's not as if Protestantism and Latter-day Saints are placed here—that could be placed in some kind of Category:Christian theology considered heterodox after the Council of Chalcedon category, with a better name of course. The others can be retained under appropriate subcategories of Category:Historical Christian denominations. - choster 22:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename as considered appropriate (either with subcats or this cat by whoever claims it). Categories are navigational aids, not information. POV isn't an issue. SchmuckyTheCat 18:04, 27 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Not his name and if no other can be found then delete. Heresy is POV, the only way of saving this is to rename to state whoose POV it is. The best I can do is Category:Heresies according to the eccumenical councils. -- Doc ^ask? 18:16, 27 January 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. Syrthiss 02:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

We now have several dozen more specific, recently created categories under Category:Women's National Basketball Association players, Category:College basketball players, and so on. This conceivably could be a catchall for those, but if not, it should be deleted.-- Mike Selinker 03:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep Obviously useful and now contains the professional subcategories. Dealing with the college players will take a little more work. Choalbaton 03:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Well, that's certainly a fine solution. I'm not a huge fan of segregating by gender, but I can't say that the sport doesn't do it.-- Mike Selinker 07:04, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep but what about renaming to Category:Female basketball players? KramarDanIkabu 03:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Women seems to be the predominant choice for the subcategories of Category:Women. We shouldn't change them one at a time without first agreeing to work towards changing them all, and I'm undecided on that. Choalbaton 05:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep but the individual players should not be in this cat, but in one of the subcats. Concur with renaming as suggested. R adiant _>|< 11:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Don't rename, the sport is known as women's basketball not female basketball. Bhoeble 14:51, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • No, the sport is in fact named Basketball (and women's basketball redirects there; it is not in fact a different sport). The adjective "female" refers to the "players", who are in fact female. What you propose is "players of the sport known as women's basketball (which doesn't exist per se)". What I propose is "players of the sport known as basketball who are female". R adiant _>|< 16:39, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep as it is. Women's basketball is a mainly American sport so American English applies. In American English women's basketball is often regarded as a separate sport, in the same way as college football is often regarded as a separate sport. It doesn't make much sense to me either, but it is so. Radiant is proposing to replace everyday English with literal dictionary English, and we shouldn't do that. CalJW 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • To be clearer about this, it isn't the same as Category:Female baseball players, where the appearance of women in the sport is notable (hence "female" modifies "baseball players"). The sport "women's basketball" (where "women's" modifies "basketball") is very well established in the US, and has its own entry on espn.com. So if the category stays, it should stay "women's basketball."-- Mike Selinker 08:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• keep. Not all women's basketball players belong in one of the current subcategories. Women's basketball is a reasonably big sport in Australia, New Zealand, China, Japan... and virtually none of those players play in the US domestic competitions.

Grutness... wha? 18:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep 'Women's basketball' is a distinct sport, even if the final name is a bit odd (is it supposed to be basketball players owned by women?). However, if there are a number of female players who play men's basketball, then perhaps such articles should be under Category:Female basketball players. I guess it's conceivable that a any player could be rightly included in 'Women's basketball players' so long as they played women's basketball, even if they were not female. Josh 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Obviously. Golfcam 05:22, 26 January 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. Syrthiss 02:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Other countries also have states. Rename. Choalbaton 03:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Rename per nom. R adiant _>|< 11:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. CalJW 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename We have churches by state in Australia too, but ours is called, Category:Churches by location, so I'm going to nominate it for renaming. ReeseM 05:21, 21 January 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. Syrthiss 02:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Abbreviation to go. Choalbaton 02:29, 20 January 2006 (UTC). reply

• Concur, avoid abbrev. R adiant _>|< 11:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as proposed. CalJW 21:33, 20 January 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. Syrthiss 02:43, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Much clearer. -- Neutrality ^talk 02:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Rename. -- SwissCelt 05:09, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 14:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. CalJW

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. Syrthiss 02:42, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

We can hopefully improve things from both perspectives in this case. "Cinema" should be added clarity in line with parent category:Cinemas and movie theaters (and six out of eight of the national subcategories use cinema rather than movie theater). But on the other hand "Theater" should be spelled the American way. Rename Choalbaton 01:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC). reply

On further investigation the US and Canadian subcategories, and 4 out of 5 US chains with Theatre in their name, and 3 out of 3 Canadian chains with theatre in their name, use "re". I've amended the proposal accordingly. Choalbaton 01:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename as proposed. CalJW 21:33, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as per nom. Valiantis 01:53, 21 January 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 merge to Category:People shot dead by police and delete. Syrthiss 02:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

POV. -- Ezeu 00:19, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete, wrong name for several reasons, and overcat for several others. R adiant _>|< 00:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Where else do you think they can all go? People shot dead by police aren't all criminals, and they don't all have anything else in common. Choalbaton 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Not sure if this is the best-named cat ever, but the proposer says "POV" and on that basis there is no ground to delete. Being unarmed is a matter of fact, not opinion; being shot dead is a matter of fact, not opinion. If the category were named "Innocent victims murdered by the police", that would be POV, as would "Potentially dangerous individuals rightfully neutralised by the police". Valiantis 00:50, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep Probably the best terminology available. Choalbaton 01:35, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Merge into category:people shot dead by police. Choalbaton 03:27, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• The problem seems to be the dichotomy between (normal) "people killed by police" and "unarmed people killed by police". There is an apparent assumption that the unarmed people aren't criminals, but that is a non sequitur. And since that does not follow, there is no useful distinction between the two cats, and this one should be upmerged. R adiant _>|< 02:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • I believe you're misreading it. The category would say 'innocent people' if it meant innocent people, but it doesn't. Police are not supposed to shoot only guilty people, they are supposed to shoot only people who pose an immediate threat. Eliot 14:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • So, someone who has black belt is not an immediate threat? How about someone with a steel bar, they are not armed either? Vegaswikian 22:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per R adiant _>|<. Vegaswikian 19:48, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge as suggested. CalJW 21:34, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per Radiant! - TexasAndroid 22:28, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per Radiant! - Valentinian 22:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per Radiant! - I stand by my original comments and suspect that the "apparent assumption" Radiant made was his/her assumption rather than an assumption inherent in the cat name. However, upmerging will avoid issues as to what constitutes being unarmed etc. and neither cat is large enough to make subcategorisation necessary. Valiantis 23:32, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge. Regarding the parent cat: "fatally shot" reads better to me than "shot dead". YMMV. - Sean Curtin 00:52, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Useful distinction, as per my comment to Radiant! above. Eliot 14:37, 24 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Upmerge per Radiant! Bhoeble 12:26, 25 January 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. Syrthiss 02:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC) reply

Much better name and in line with proposals below. Vegaswikian 00:06, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename, I was wondering what that cat actually meant. R adiant _>|< 00:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. I was just about to make this very change myself, before I noticed that Vegaswikian had CFR'd it. Bearcat 00:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• indifferent, Bermuda ( 441) isn't in the "Caribbean" if you go by US definition. But *was* in the 809 area code. CaribDigita 04:40, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Does anyone see a problem with creating a category of Category:Area codes in Bermuda? Or is it OK to leave in the Caribbean? Vegaswikian 06:10, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • We usually go by country for such things, so I'd prefer that for consistency. R adiant _>|< 11:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC) reply
      • It's a bit tricky; I don't think a "subject in country" category is normally warranted where there's only one possible entry. Bermuda's article has the Caribbean Community template on it, so I think it may be at least worth discussing the possibility of simply leaving it in the Caribbean category. Bearcat 04:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Category: North American area codes Numbering Plan. We do not categorize area codes split from, say Area code 213, which is at least as iconic as 809 (I remember the angry letters to the editor when 310 was created). Besides, not only is Bermuda not in the Caribbean, neither are The Bahamas ( Area code 242). - choster 07:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Category:North American area codes is currently listed elsewhere on CFD to be renamed as a US-specific category (since everything currently in it is a US area code), so this proposal is only valid if that CFD discussion fails. Bearcat 23:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Sorry, there was a critical typo in my alternative proposal. I mean to divorce the numbering system from geography entirely.- choster 22:47, 26 January 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename Kind of debatable whether the Caribbean's in North America. Golfcam 05:23, 26 January 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.