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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Category is small in scope, the maximum number of things that could possibly go in here right now is about 10 and would grow at a max of one or two articles per years, for newly released games. -- Jtalledo (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, before categories like this are created for every professional wrestler. -- Musicpvm 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Or every athlete: Games with Michael Jordan, Games with Tiger Woods, Games with that backup left tackle for the Texans... No thanks. Delete.-- Mike Selinker 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - the issue I see with keeping this kind of category is that the game articles themselves will be swamped with categories. SeventyThree^{( Talk)} 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. This is not unlike Julia Roberts films and similar cats that often come through here. × Meegs 12:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nomination and SeventyThree -- Darren Jowalsen 00:26, 22 June 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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

When I saw this at the bottom of an article about an Italian composer, it wasn't exzctly meaningful to me. It would be much better to rename it is English. Chicheley 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename Chicheley 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Click on Bundesverdienstkreuz to find out?  Regards, David Kernow 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. You can't click directly on the Bundesverdienstkreuz article when the word appears as a category name. Calsicol 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oops, yes. Well, maybe a sentence or two at the top of the category page...?  Regards, David Kernow 23:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. You have to visit the category page to read what is written on it and that shouldn't be necessary. As far as possible the meaning of every category at the bottom of an article should be clear immediately. Osomec 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• I agree. However, as broadband speeds and load-in-new- tab become the norm, I also agree keeping category lists at concise, scannable lengths is at least as important. Keeping this future in mind, is it or will it really be that inconvenient?  Regards, David 00:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Recipients of the Bundesverdienstkreuz or Category:Bundesverdienstkreuz recipients. David Kernow 00:03, 23 June 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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Category has few members and is unlikely to grow significantly. Members can go to parent, but 3 of 4 are already there. Brian G 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep The richest family in Canada and one of the richest in the world. Chicheley 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm not sure that wealth is pertinent to there being a category. In my opinion, the number of family members with articles is of relevance. Will this be growing significantly at some point in the future? I have no problem if this will evolve into something the size of Category:House of Glücksburg or even Category:Mountbatten-Windsor family, but do we need a category for 4 members who are all easily linked within their current articles? We do not currently have categories for the families of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim Helú, Ingvar Kamprad, Lakshmi Mittal or a number of other famously rich families.-- Brian G 00:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep The five men mentioned by Brian G are all self-made, but the present head of the Thomson family is the 3rd Lord Thomson. Cloachland 01:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • OK. So now 4 more articles have been added to the category, but 3 of these are not people and since this is a people category, they don't belong here unless you rename the category or make it a subcategory of a different patent category. The other is a list page that contains 3 of the family members. Does every peerage title family deserve its own category? I reaffirm my Delete-- Brian G 02:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Given their importance in Canada, I expect more related articles will be written in the future. Deet 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Are you saying that more of these articles will be about people? If so, I could be convinced, but if the articles are about other things then I say move the category to somewhere else in the category tree or delete.-- Brian G 02:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    • I was thinking people, companies and significant events. Deet 02:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    • It is well established that family categories aren't restricted to biographical articles. Calsicol 15:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete -- Recent (2 day old) creation. Tiny and of no actual use. Any peerage should be listified, as most will not be notable enough for an individual article. -- William Allen Simpson 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep A category does not need to be enormous to be useful. We have dynasties with fewer members. User:Dimadick
  • Could you please cite some of them here?-- Brian G 12:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Did you look? This category has more articles than any of the other six categories for Canadian families and scores of categories for non-Canadian families. Calsicol 15:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    • Category:Attalids has only eight articles but covers two centuries of rule. Category:House of Balliol has only eight articles but decently coverts a short-lived Scottish dynasty. Category:Ayyubids has only six members because we do not have articles on all members of this Kurdish dynasty of Egypt, Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Homs, Yemen and Jezireh. Category:Cao Wei emperors has only 5 articles because there were only five of them. There are others. User:Dimadick
• Keep This is probably the first family one would expect to find in category:Canadian families. Calsicol 15:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep against nom Antares33712 19:24, 21 June 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, implemented throughout the subcategory hierarchy. -- RobertG ♬ talk 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

The term "canyon" is not widely used in all countries; as a name, "Canyons and gorges" gives a better world view. this change should also ripple down through the subcategory hierarchy if agreed SP-KP 19:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Agreement here - it felt odd when I created the NZ subcat, since there's only one "canyon" I know of in New Zealand, and that hasn't got an article. All the others are gorges. Combining the names makes perfect sense. Grutness... wha? 00:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nominator. There are no canyons in the UK so far as I know but we do have some gorges (smallish ones). Calsicol 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom Antares33712 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename since different terminology is used for the same feature in different contexts. Kestenbaum 18:41, 22 June 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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I created the former, but the latter already exists. However I would be just as happy to merge the old one (which is also woefully underpopulated) into the new one. But if we do that the Labour and Liberal categories will need to be renamed as well. Chicheley 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC). reply

• Merge and rename related categories per nom. David Kernow 12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC), amended 18:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment I do not understand which naming you are supporting David: if we Merge as propsed then the other two cats will not need renaming (but if we Reverse merge, then the other two will need CFR tagged and Renamed). -- Mais oui! 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Yes, I compacted my vote too much. I was thinking that "Conservative Party members of the United Kingdom Parliament" breaks up the phrase "Member of Parliament", so "Conservative Members of Parliament" plus a reference to UK somewhere might be preferable; then thought "MP"/"MPs" may be a sufficiently well-known abbreviation... I'm becoming more convinced that abbreviations in category names (rather than the current penchant for long category names) aren't such a bad idea, as one or two clicks can reveal what an unrecognised abbreviation means... Unsure, David 18:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge and tag and rename the Lab and LD ones too. -- Mais oui! 15:22, 21 June 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 -- William Allen Simpson 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Like Category:Rock and Roll Musicians For The Political Left, which is nominated for deletion below, this is not a useful categorization scheme. - EurekaLott 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Where is the other nomination? I can't find it. Please coppy my vote there as well. - MrFizyx 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete I tried to look for the pair, but it wasn't categorized. -- waffle iron  ^talk 18:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Musicpvm 23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. - M ^ask 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, and tar and feather the musicians as unpatriotic Hollywood elites who don't support our troops. Postdlf 23:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete Useless. And artists don't fall neatly on political spectrums anyway. Wasted Time R 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Category:Musical activists seems to do the job and this category doesn't meet naming conventions anyway. - MrFizyx 11:03, 27 June 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 to Category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename. Naming conventions. Darwinek 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose These are monasteries which follow Tibetan Buddhism but they are not all in Tibet. Rename category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and create a subcategory for monasteries in Tibet. Chicheley 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries per Chicheley. David Kernow 12:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment: There's a significant overlap with the already existing Category:Buddhist temples in Tibet-- Confuzion 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename Category:Buddhist temples in Tibet to Category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in Tibet and make subcategory of Category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries...?  Regards, David Kernow 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries per Chicheley. Osomec 14:35, 22 June 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 already speedied. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Members should become Category:Serbian football managers or Category:Montenegrin football managers -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Split. Now that the state and the football team don't exist, it's perfectly logical to split the category. Todor → Bozhinov 11:39, 30 June 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 already deleted - TexasAndroid 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Members shoud become Category:Footballers in Serbia by club or Category:Footballers in Montenegro by club -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:36, 20 June 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 until split. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Members should become Category:Serbian footballers or Category:Montenegrin footballers. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Oppose for now. Indeed they should, but the first two I looked at don't give the information needed for recategorisation. Let's wait for someone with local knowledge to sort it out. Osomec 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose can't knee-jerk change due to current events that may rapidly change. Antares33712 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It wouldn't change. "Greater Yugoslavia" fell apart, that's an inevitable fact. Montenegro is de facto a new country now. Waiting for "local knowledge" (Serbian nationalists) isn't a good idea. This is exactly the same situation as with the Republic of Macedonia and subsequent problems with Greek nationalists. Split as quick as possible. - Darwinek 08:24, 23 June 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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename this category because it was carelessly named in the first place since this category does not have any articles or connection to Judaism which is the Jewish religion -- and Jewish anarchists are not identified or noted for their allegiance to Judaism. Rather, this category's main article is Jewish anarchism which defines and explains the subject in detail (and also includes it's sub-category of Category:Jewish anarchists) and thus this category should rightly be (re)named Category:Jewish anarchism. IZAK 09:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename for above reasons. IZAK 09:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename, to match the main article, if nothing else. Luna Santin 10:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom - Nesher 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename -- William Allen Simpson 02:32, 21 June 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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

We just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion, and looking through the subcategories of Category:Abortion, we noticed we had a category called "Abortion rights opposition". That seemed kind of biased, so we sorted the couple of articles that were in it into a new Category:Pro-life movement, which matches Category:Pro-choice movement rather nicely. There's no further use for Category:Abortion rights opposition, as we're very unlikely to introduce a Category:Fetal rights opposition anytime soon. GTBacchus^{( talk)} 09:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as nom. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 09:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per GTBacchus. - Severa ( !!!) 09:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Both movements commonly refer to themselves in positive terms, I don't see why we shouldn't. The two categories may have been submitted by different editors, I doubt there was actual malice involved, but nevertheless we should go for consistency. Luna Santin 10:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. Reverse merge into this and amend the other one to category:Abortion rights support. Pro-life and Pro-choice are both propaganda spin terms and not neutral. Osomec 12:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

I have tagged the following for renaming to neutral terms:

• Category:Pro-choice movement --> category:Abortion rights movement
• Category:Pro-choice activists --> category:Abortion rights activists
• Category:Pro-choice organizations --> category:Abortion rights organizations
• Category:Pro-choice politicians --> category:Politicians that support abortion rights
• Category:Abortion rights opposition --> category:Opposition to abortion
• Category:Pro-life activists --> category:Anti-abortion activists
• Category:Pro-life organizations --> category:Anti-abortion organizations
• Category:Pro-life politicians --> category:Politicians that oppose abortion
• Rename all Osomec 13:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  Comment - It's pretty biased to suggest that the Pro-choice movement is simply about abortion rights, or that the Pro-life movement is simply about abortion opposition. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  It is totally false and groundless speculation to accuse me of bias. I don't give a toss about this debate, or all the accretion of side issues that have accumulated around itm but I know what propaganda is, and I know it breaches Wikipedia's policies. Osomec 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  I didn't think of it as an accusation against you, just against your suggestion. Please don't take it personally. Like Andrew c said below, it's pretty weird to talk about the anti-abortion activists protesting outside of Terry Schiavo's home, or the abortion rights activists campaigning for sex education to prevent teen pregnancy. There actually is a deeper conflict than the legality of abortion at stake there, and the respective movements recognize that. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Comment I also now note that Category:Abortion rights opposition is the original. It has been renamed without seeking approval here. It is inappropriate to present this page with a fait accompli, so I will repopulate. I have also added a proposal to rename the first nominated category to category:Opposition to abortion to the list above as using the word "rights" pre-supposes that such rights exist, and is therefore POV. However it is acceptable to use "rights" for the other camp as it is "rights" that they are campaigning for (as distinct from campaigning for the number of abortions to be pushed up to the highest possible level). Osomec 13:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Also, Oppose Osomec's renaming. We try to use the terms "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" as often as possible, since, although they are both politically charged, they are the most neutral in that they are what people of each side identify with. Besides, both are about more than just abortion, as you will see if you go to their respective pages. So, it only makes sense that the categories would reflect this point as well. rom a rin talk ] 14:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'm sorry to have presented this CfD improperly. I guess I've done a CfD nomination once or twice before, but I didn't realize it was a big deal to move a few articles. I won't do that again in the future. I also didn't realize there would be any controversy over this deletion - after working with the same group on the abortion articles, who've all basically accepted that Pro-choice and Pro-life are the terms we've chosen to use in those articles, I just assumed naming the categories consistently with the articles was the obvious way to go, and that everybody would see that immediately. Considering that most people aren't such gluttons for punishment as to have Abortion on their watchlist, I guess I should have known better. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Even items listed for speedy renaming often attract opposition. Osomec 19:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete this any any category of "opposition" (i.e. "gay rights opposition") Paul 17:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Osomec's renaming. If a group is best known by a politically charged term, well, that's what they're known by, and we should organize them by that usage rather than trying to change the meanings of words.-- M @ r ē ino 17:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • That's beyond understanding. You set out the main reason why they are not neutral, why they are pure propaganda, and then you say that it is a reason why they are neutral! Osomec 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is the activists who are trying to change the meanings of words, whereas Wikipedia should use straightforward English. My proposal calls things by their proper names and will be understood by anyone with a grasp of English, not just people familar with this mainly American tussle. In my opinion the way you are doing things is throughtly unencyclopedic and shows that you have allowed yourselves to be manipulated by propagandists on both sides. It suggests to be that Wikipedia's coverage of abortion will be totally untrustworthy and should be avoided Osomec 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
    • As noted above, calling the pro-life movement "anti-abortion" fails to recognize that their platform typically embraces multiple issues, ditto for pro-choice. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
      • There is one central issue. Abortion is the reason these categories exist so the focus should be on abortion, not on any side issues or distraction tactics used by either side. It seems to me that people who are involved enough in these issues to have taken part in the discussion aren't really in a good position to judge what terminology will look neutral to the majority of people who are not emotionally involved in this issue. Osomec 19:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
        • I really don't think it's for Wikipedia to take a position on what parts of a political movement's agenda count as "distraction tactics". You may be right about that, but it's not NPOV. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment This sorry mess just shows that Wikipedia can't handle controversial topics because of the amount of manipulation that is involved. I don't read Wikipedia articles on controversial topics, and I don't think anyone else should use or trust them either. Osomec 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  Thanks for your feedback. We set up WikiProject Abortion last night in the hopes of improving our coverage in the 150 or so articles in the abortion-related categories. We would certainly value your feedback there about how the articles can be improved, and your assistance in improving them would be even more gladly appreciated. Our first job seems to be getting the names right on these categories. I'm not married to the current names; I was just keen not to reinvent too many wheels, since debates over these names have occurred in the past. Since that's not in our collective memory, I don't mind talking about it, and maybe we can start to do something about the situation you're lamenting. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. As Osomec's comment about straightforward English, which of the following is more straightforward definition of "abortion rights" if you aren't already aware of the issue: the right for a woman to have an abortion or the right for a fetus to be protected from an abortion? Caerwine Caerwhine 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Comment there is a difference between Neutral POV and NO point of view. Neutral tries to balance ALL POVs with due weight. No point of view tries to write in a "neutral" manner, excluding any POV. I refer you to WP:NCI. Just because something sounds more "neutral" to you, does not make it so. The best solution is to simply use the terms that the organizations/movement uses for themselves. This avoids confusion of using uber PC terms that a lay audience may not understand are euphamisms for common terms tha some editors find offensive (Pro-life, Pro-choice, gay rights, etc). Furthermore, by reducing these movements to a single issue, you are setting up a strange situation. For example "The opposition to abortion movement protested outside of Terri Schiavo's hospice..."-- Andrew c 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: Per Andrew c, in this case, I think the simplest solution would be to stick with self-identifying terminology. - Severa ( !!!) 20:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename all as per Osomec. In each case it removes either the debated term "pro" or "rights" while continuing to be completely factually accurate. Deet 02:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  It's not factually accurate, as far as I can tell, to suggest that the pro-choice movement is about nothing but abortion rights, nor that the pro-choice movement is about nothing but opposition to abortion. - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 02:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, merge subcategories into Category:Pro-life movement -- Oppose renaming by Osomec -- William Allen Simpson 02:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per GTBacchus and strongly oppose Osomec's suggestion. I'm sure Osomec is striving to come up with the least biased terms possible, but I do think his suggestions are definitely more biased (and, incidentally, confusing) than how things currently stand. Caerwine makes a very good point that the term "abortion rights" is itself ambiguous because (as has been made clear through the last two decades of heated debate in the US) many people feel the issue is much more complicated than simply a question of rights. It's also framing the debate, in some sense. In short, I propose that all categories and related be named using the "pro - choice / pro - life" pattern, as
  1. We all know what "pro-life" and "pro-choice" mean
  2. These terms, while not perfect, are actually more accurate than using "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion"; e.g. see Bacchus' comments regarding Terri Schiavo and availability of contraception
  3. These are the terms that the overwhelming majority of news and news analysis sources use
  4. Just about the only thing that the partisans in this debate have agreed to is to use those terms, and that says something. -- Deville ( Talk) 02:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strongly oppose Osomec's rename. - Severa ( !!!) 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete "Abortion rights opposition" and Oppose renaming scheme proposed by Osomec. Many political terms now seen as neutral descriptors started out as propaganda spin terms, e.g., Bolshevik. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are now widely understood and used across the spectrum; neither side seriously contests the other's label. Kestenbaum 06:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• SUPPORT Osmec, except replace "rights" with "access" to be more neutral. "Anti-abortion" is a widespread term, and a perfect description for people who support the death penalty, or euthanasia, etc, but oppose abortion, and "access" is what the "pro-choice" people want, but they are not pro-choice about other issues, like say... cannibalism, and not all would support a choice in homosexuality, etc. 132.205.45.148 19:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply

  Category:Abortion access movement sounds like a pretty contrived locution to me, that wouldn't naturally occur to many readers... Don't most people recognize the movement by the name "pro-choice"? - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete - Per GTBacchus and Luna Santin. Oppose - porposal by Osomec per self-identifying terminolgy. Doc Tropics 07:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom, Oppose proposal by Osomec. Although I agree with your terminology in principle, Osomec (see my user page), actually switching to those terms would simply provoke an endless semantic war--not to mention violate WP policy. The self-identifying terminolgy guidelines seem practically like they were written for this argument. WP is an encylopedia, meant to gather information according to the most generally recognized terms, not the terms that are necessarily correct. -- BCSWowbagger 08:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strongly oppose Osomec's rename. - "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not just about abortion MamaGeek ( Talk/ Contrib) 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strongly oppose Osomec's rename.Sounds contrived and limiting. Should use the names each side gives itself. Killua 14:32, 29 June 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 already deleted - TexasAndroid 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This recently created category (with only one Jew in it so far!) is a perfect example of a " neologism in action" and thus violates Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms as well as contravening WP:OR or worse. It is a silly attempt to present Germans as "wronged" people whereas nothing could be further from the truth. The Germans are strong and admired and have always been so, and if they have only themselves to blame for failing in two world wars, there is no need to create cockamamy categories on Wikipedia to "justify" them. Give us a break and delete this silly category soon. Thank you. IZAK 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete for above reasons (do we need any?) IZAK 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. - EurekaLott 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete.-- Shlomke 20:51, 20 June 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 (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Both of 2 (two) items in this new category are deliberately misinterpreted as propaganda by their haters: one is a Hebrew language word for "explaining" and another is a translation service from Arabic and Farsi that Islamists are trying to denigrate by combining poisoning the well and ad hom attacks. An example of extremist political POV interfering with making a serious neutral encyclopedia. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as nom. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom abakharev 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No room on Wikipedia for potential hatemongering. IZAK 09:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and give me a break. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - these efforts are getting more and more pathetic. -- Leifern 13:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete ASAP per nom. -- DLand ^TALK 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete --I have an urge to just go ahead and do it myself speedily... While an article on "propaganda in Israel" might be worthwhile, "Israeli propaganda" is not a good member of Category:Propaganda by country, it is simply a smear tactic...and a rather obscene one at that... The only other "country" subcategory represented there by an adjectival form is Category:Nazi propaganda. I think that alone is reason to delete the category and probably slap its creator around a little bit with a large trout. Tom e r ^talk 19:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. -- Shlomke 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Mantanmoreland 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. At this point there's only one item in the category - hard to think of anything more pointless. Timothy Usher 06:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and Tomer. Kestenbaum 06:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and now Antares33712 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete POV Sonofzion 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per Nom and pass the trout. Doc Tropics 07:32, 24 June 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 (empty). Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

This recently created category is far too vague. The larger Category:Jews requires greater clarity and specificity for its sub-categories, see its other contents that clearly prove the meaninglessness of such a nebulous name of "groups" (of what?). There are other clearer ways to do this, see for example Category:Jewish organizations. This Category:Jewish groups also poses the danger of creating future clutter of unwanted redundancy. IZAK 06:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete as per the above reasons. IZAK 06:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge with Category:Jewish organizations or Delete (it empty anyway) abakharev 08:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge or Del per above. ← Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge or Delete per abakharev. Pecher ^Talk 09:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge or Delete per above. -- PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per abakharev. - Ugliness Man 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Merge per abakharev, failing that, delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - duplicates existing categories -- Nesher
• Delete quickly, before someone starts populating it. It's presently empty, as it should remain. As per nom, this category name is way too vague to ever be useful. Tom e r ^talk 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Nom, quick while it's empty Doc Tropics 07:34, 24 June 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. -- RobertG ♬ talk 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

In Talk:Chili_pepper#Requested_move it was decided that "chili pepper" is the best naming. So now the category should presumably be also renamed for consistency. Bovineone 05:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. -- Musicpvm 05:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename should be consistent -- Chris Q 09:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Good catch. Luna Santin 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. - Ugliness Man 11:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:50, 21 June 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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

[R]ather pointless list[s] that would prove quite difficult to mantain. BMetts 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Keep both Not pointless at all. The fact that categories are based on nationalities, but some people make a notable contribution in countries which are not their own is one of the problems of the category system, and this addresses that. It is no harder to maintain than any other category. Osomec 13:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete both -- recent Mayumashu creation -- contrary to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) -- nationality is always coupled with the occupation -- use (sub)category of Category:People by American city and/or Category:People by British city for notable residence. -- William Allen Simpson 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • It is not contrary to policy at all. One type of category does not preclude others. Osomec 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep assuming the list is about important American citizens who contributed as British residents. Antares33712 13:55, 22 June 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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

More specific title that better describes the content. Part of a larger overhaul of fire protection categories. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:52, 21 June 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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Category:Streams of Virginia to Category:Rivers of Virginia
• Category:Streams of West Virginia to Category:Rivers of West Virginia
• Category:Streams of Alaska
• Category:Streams of Arizona
• Category:Streams of Minnesota

Technical nomination to complete Jun 10 approved move of Category:Streams of the United States to Category:Rivers of the United States. These subcats were not tagged. Since the three for deletion only had 1 entry, I moved those and am proposing for deletion here. Vegaswikian 05:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename all five. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as above.-- Mike Selinker 19:42, 20 June 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 -- William Allen Simpson 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

NN neologism that gets exactly one Google hit with this meaning outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors; it gets more hits as a euphemism for bisexuality than for singer-rappers (and even then, it gets only three). Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-way artist. (ETA: renaming the category to Category:Singer-rappers might be a viable alternative, but the current name is an unsourced term that has strong potential to be misunderstood, which is generally a bad idea for category naming.) Bearcat 04:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. -- Musicpvm 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Artists who sing and rap with equal notability are even more notable. Also, its not a neologism, but urban black vernacular. 216.141.226.190 05:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Urban black vernacular generally shows up on Google. Bearcat 05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete Per nom, and also, even if the definition were more widespread, it doesn't look like all the people in this category have been described as "two-way artists" in any published media. So it just seems more like they're listed there because random people on Wikipedia think they sing and rap well. POV categories are generally problematic, this one is no exception. -- W.marsh 14:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete. No way I want to label someone as that.-- Mike Selinker 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. — Centrx→ talk 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete and comment. Sorry folks, please forgive me, I jumped the gun and created this mess (I thought the term was more notable than it was). The intent was not to be POV (well is subjective, notable is not). For example Queen Latifah is notable as a rap artist (her early work, Black Reign for example). Her latest has her singing standards and light jazz. Is she a good singer or rapper? I don't care, but she is notable for both abilities and that was the intent of the category. the ten or so names I put in there I could say on song X this artist sang and on song Y this person rapped. Mariah Carey rapped on Prisoner on her eponymous debut, but she is not notable for rapping (thank God), only singing. It wouldn't matter if she was "good" or not, just notable. I would like to see a singer-rapper (rap song) category created, since people with both abilities are notable, but the cat would need watching. Antares33712 19:20, 21 June 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 already deleted - TexasAndroid 14:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Obviously POV. -- Musicpvm 03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete... Sarge Baldy 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete PoV junk Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete BabuBhatt 03:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete what makes a vocalist exceptional? to some it's Whitney Houston, to others it might be Axl Rose. Drmagic 04:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete ridiculously POV 216.141.226.190 05:29, 20 June 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 (by GTBacchus). × Meegs 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename to correct spelling and capitalization. 'United Staates' is incorrectly spelled with two 'a' and 'Shows' should not be capitalized. Q0 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• By all means, fix this per nomination. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename -- Musicpvm 03:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Speedy rename. Slam dunk. Deet 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Not necessary to submit this for debate; speedy rename. Bearcat 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Done - GTBacchus^{( talk)} 09:48, 20 June 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 -- William Allen Simpson 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Seems exactly what Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly says to avoid. Without constant, dedicated vigilance, canceled comics could remain here indefinitely. There's much potential for dated, inaccurate information. Propose for deletion. -- Tenebrae 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deet 03:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Wisd e n17 13:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete, per Tenebrae and Deet. Also, the very nature of the object of this category is essentially unmantainable. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Delete - per Tenebrae and Deet. Doc Tropics 07:40, 24 June 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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

More concise category title, fits in with the existing fictional character convention better. Pikawil 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. Cool categories, these. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename. Much tighter.-- Mike Selinker 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per norm. Zythe 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - per nom. Doc Tropics 07:41, 24 June 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. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply

More concise category title, fits in with the existing fictional character convention better. Pikawil 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename as above.-- Mike Selinker 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename per norm. Zythe 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Rename - per nom. Doc Tropics 07:42, 24 June 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 -- William Allen Simpson 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Rename Category:Companies of the United States by state has its subcategories out of sync with the way the rest of the company by location categories work. Instead of the expected Companies of Alabama, etc. It uses the format Companies based in Alabama, etc. I recommend harmonizing these by replacing the based in with of in all 51 categories here, plus the 18 subcategories of Category:Companies based in California, the 3 subcategories of Category:Companies based in Nevada, Category:Companies based in Philadelphia, Category:Companies based in New York City, Category:Companies based in Fargo-Moorhead, and Category:Companies based in Seattle, Washington. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

• Renaming of categories has become a sub-culture all of its own, one that I find hard to care much about anymore. (N.B., I don't mean this as a slam against those who labor here--it's more an indication that I find it too wearying to keep up with all the accumulated precedents and lore that has been built up.) However, qualifying these as "companies of X" seems misguided. Companies often have a multistate or multinational presence. And with mergers and acquisitions, it can become difficult to tell what "of" means. What is objectively verifiable is where a company's headquarters is based. Of course we can by fiat define "companies of place" to mean whatever we want it to mean, but I think the non-intuitive "of" will make a bit more difficult to keep the random addition of companies with a significant presence in a place (but which is headquartered elsewhere) from cropping up in the renamed categories. older ≠ wiser 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
  • The alternative of renaming every other localized company category that is outside Category:Companies of the United States by state (including Category:Companies of the United States) to use based in instead of of is also a valid option, but will require a lot more work; a lot, lot, lot more work. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Strong oppose. I also don't think saying a company is "of" a state means anything in particular, and to perhaps unnecessarily elaborate after the above well-reasoned comment, I think the proposed rename would inevitably cause the categories to be used for simply any company that does business in the state, whether by physical plant or shipping, or any company founded by people from the state. Where a company is headquartered is a clear and meaningful relationship to categorize, and this limitation prevents such inevitable inanities as 51 categories for McDonald's. There's also no need to conform naming styles of category structures that perform separate functions and are meant to coexist as here (the last thing we want to do is make every U.S. company only categorized by state), and I think being "of" a country is much more significant and clear than being "of" a state. Even corporations that exist multinationally still have strong national identities; not so of interstate ones and state identities. Postdlf 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Instead, why not make Category:Companies of the United States by state, Category:Companies in the United States by state. -- evrik 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose "Based in" is much clearer. Chicheley 01:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The trend is to use "based in" more often. Osomec 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
• Oppose In the USA, there is a legal difference among where a company is located (all the states it does business in), where it is based (where the headquarters is), and where it is registered (usually Delaware for very large companies, for very complicated reasons). A company could be said to be "of" any of those three, so "of" is a poor choice of words. -- M @ r ē ino 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply

Oppose Though I concur that there should be a consolidation of multiple categories, the term "of" can be misleading. I believe the listing "Companies based in {{state}}" is a better heading, as a company can have locations in many places but headquartered (based) in only one. Quidam65 19:07, 26 June 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.