The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge per nom. Kbdank71 18:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Basilica churches in Australia to Category:Basilica churches in Oceania and
Merge Category:Basilica churches of New Zealand into same. -- Bwpach ( talk) 21:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale:

1. There is only 1 article for New Zealand, and unlikely to be more
2. That's the way archdioceses are grouped
3. The Vatican [1] uses this terminology
4. The basilica in Guam does not have a sub-category under the current system

• Merge per nom, though some head-cats will no longer work. Johnbod ( talk) 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename but keep the New Zealand one (should be "...in..."). There's some undersorting here, clearly, either that or there simply aren't articles yet for the other basilica churches in NZ (which is a little surprising - I would have expected one for the Christchurch Basilica , Cathedral of the Sacred Heart, Wellington and Church of the Sacred Heart, Timaru at least to have articles). Certainly the "unlikely to be more" is, to put it mildly, overly pessimistic. Also, as Johnbod suggests, this will cause problems for the parent Category:Churches in New Zealand - there is no logical reason why by-nation categories shouldn't exist, with an Oceania category as a natural parent category. Grutness... wha? 23:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment: I don't mean to be pessimistic, but the article List of basilicas, and its reference Giga-Catholic Information don't have ANY basilicas for New Zealand. Basilicas are churches with a special designation given by the Pope, and that doesn't occur often. By the way, these categories do not have any bearing on churches by nation. -- Bwpach ( talk) 01:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply

If the list you mention doesn't list any in New Zealand, yet the Wikipedia category already has one in it, you can be pretty certain that the list you mention is incomplete. I have visited three Basilicas in New Zealand, none of which was the one currently in the category. I think that you need a better reference. Grutness... wha? 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Right, there only 531 in Italy! The site seems unlikely to be correct - a warning for those tempted to rely on such sources. Johnbod ( talk) 18:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually, I wonder whether there is some confusion going on here. Bwpach claims that basilicas can only be declared such by a pope, which strikes me as odd since a basilica is simply a specific architectural style of church. Grutness... wha? 01:33, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

No, a basilica is a design for a public building, originally Roman law courts & the like, but is also a designation of RC churches, regardless of architecture, divided into "major" (very few, all I think in Rome) and " minor basilicas". We are talking about RC minor basilicas here - see parent cats. But they are not all that rare. Johnbod ( talk) 01:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

One should be able to tell from the websites of the NZ ones, but the links in both articles are dead. Johnbod ( talk) 01:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I was working on a whole thing, but there was an edit conflict. You're right, I'm talking about the Roman Catholic basilicas; see Category:Basilica churches and the sub-categories. Really, I could just create the category for Oceania myself, but I wanted to eliminate the over-categorization, if possible. -- Bwpach ( talk) 02:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

...and we're back with further confusion by calling them that. The three churches I mentioned are all basilicas (by dint of their architecture) and are all Roman Catholic, but none have had pontifical naming as such. Which leads to confusion - especially since two of them are known as "Christchurch Basilica" and "Timaru Basilica". Unless something is done to disambiguate the two meanings it seems very likely that these categories may develop into edit-war fodder. Grutness... wha? 22:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Do you actually know they don't have the status? As the Cathedrals of the two main NZ cities, I expect they do. Johnbod ( talk) 22:59, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm sure the people of Timaru would be flattered to hear their city described as one of the country's two main cities :) Christchurch would probably rank about 3, Timaru about 14 or 15. Grutness... wha? 21:50, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I meant Wellington & Chch above - ok 2/3; Timaru basilica is a redlink anyway. Johnbod ( talk) 22:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually neither website (links now corrected) says they do, in which case they should not be in these categories anyway. Only ancient architectural basilicas are categorised on form alone. Johnbod ( talk) 23:15, 24 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete, TFD was approved, and the templates in this category are not being used. Kbdank71 15:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:110th United States congressional delegation navigation boxes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All of its contents should be deleted per {{ TFD}} at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 22#Template:Congressional delegation. — Markles 19:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment Discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 December 22#Template:Congressional delegation has just started. Plus, this really isn't the place to be discussing the deletion of the contents of said category - that would be the TfD. JPG-GR ( talk) 19:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Response: what I was saying was: If/when the TFD is approved, then this category will be unnecessary and should then be deleted. — Markles 19:58, 22 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete both, as they are both empty. Kbdank71 18:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Bir Mourad Raïs District ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is already Category:Bir Mourad Rais District, with the more correct spelling. escondites 18:32, 22 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. This was a bit soon after the last CFD, and since the the wikiproject was notified five days ago and there were no comments at all after that, not much to do but close this. Kbdank71 17:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:English footballers who played for other national teams to Category:English-born footballers who played for other national teams

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Previous discussion was indecisive, and complicated by initial inappropriate proposal to merge. Players identified can undoubtedly be described as English-born, but their choice of national team makes the description of them as English a matter of conjecture, and may be a description with which they would not associate themselves. Kevin McE ( talk) 15:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Close now Previous very recent discussion only closed days ago, & had several editors involved. Much too soon to revisit. Johnbod ( talk) 15:52, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Now linked. If a consensus had been reached, I would not have renominated, but none was. I have already stated that the discussion was confused: a clearer proposal might make for a clearer discussion, enabling consensus. Kevin McE ( talk) 16:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

The discussion might have been relisted, as many are. But since it was not, the close should stand, and it is too early to reopen the matter. Johnbod ( talk) 19:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related page moves. Kevin McE ( talk) 13:35, 23 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:List of Liverpool and Everton Players whose homes have been broken into ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Liverpool and Everton players whose houses have had their homes broken into ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Garion96 (talk) 10:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete something of an attack category (on the law-abiding folk of Merseyside). Johnbod ( talk) 12:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete both. (I just found the 2nd one & added it to this CFD.) Notified creator with {{ cfd-notify}} Cgingold ( talk) 13:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete Unverifiable. How can an editor be certain that a player's home has not been broken into before he came to fame, or with minor inconvenience such that it was not reported to the police/media? Kevin McE ( talk) 15:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Not only is not definable it's not even notable and probably doesn't need to be included in the articles themselves. -- Lquilter ( talk) 20:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Veering dangerously close to WP:DAFT territory, too. Grutness... wha? 23:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - this is not an attack category. There has been a spate of burglaries against players, while they have been playing important matches. If the category is kept at all, it should be Category:Liverpool and Everton footballers who have been burgled. However, it seems a NN intersection. Accordingly, delete but listify. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:35, 24 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:National Public Radio member stations. Kbdank71 17:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:GPB radio stations to Category:Georgia Public Broadcasting

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the form used by the other NPR network categories. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• After the nomination, I noticed that Category:Georgia Public Broadcasting existed and also includes PBS affiliates. So I'm not sure about the nomination. At a minimum, Category:GPB radio stations needs to be changed to Category:Georgia Public Broadcasting radio stations. The individual stations should be added to Category:National Public Radio member stations as all of the other stations appear to be included there directly. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Delete, underpopulated.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 20:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename to revised proposal of Category:Georgia Public Broadcasting radio stations. Seven articles can justify a category. Snocrates 04:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • Since they are already included in that parent, would it be better to upmerge to Category:National Public Radio member stations? Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Along with sibling cat Category:GPB TV stations (itself since nominated for deletion) as the small contents of both are served perfectly well by parent Category:Georgia Public Broadcasting which is a defining characteristic and should be preserved. - Dravecky ( talk) 06:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete after doing an upmerge to Category:National Public Radio member stations which does not have all of these listed. Yes, this is a change of my vote. Vegaswikian ( talk) 08:08, 27 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Nevada Public Radio ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unpopulated category which contains only one article, its namesake ( Nevada Public Radio) JPG-GR ( talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. It was populated at one time and is again. It is also a part of a series. Vegaswikian ( talk) 09:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I don't believe a category which contains 7 items, 3 of which being redirects, is enough to qualify as a category. JPG-GR ( talk) 17:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Redirect - Template:NPR Nevada - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 14:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Redirects across namespaces are generally frowned upon (though I can't find the exact policy that says as such at the moment). JPG-GR ( talk) 17:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You can figure that one out, but there are templates available, so there must be a category to go with it. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 17:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

There is no "rule" that says that if you have a template, it has to have an accompanying category. JPG-GR ( talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Duh....try this one >>> Category:NPR member stations. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 18:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Umm... what does that have to do with what I just said? JPG-GR ( talk) 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Nothing really, I just found a category for Category:Nevada Public Radio to be redirected to and didn't answer what you had to say. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 18:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete This categorization provides no value. Each of those station pages has been tagged for merge into Nevada Public Radio anyway.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 19:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • So do we delete the categories for all of the member networks? Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
    • Unless there are enough stations that provide local content, then yes, those categories should be deleted as well and all those pages merged into the parent network page.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 23:21, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
      • Has it been decided how to do the merge when there are two parent networks? Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:30, 23 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Oz illustrators ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper person by project/franchise overcategorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination with plenty of precedent. Doczilla ( talk) 09:43, 22 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Oz writers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - person by project/franchise overcategorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 05:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nomination with plenty of precedent. Doczilla ( talk) 09:43, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• At least merge to Category:Oz Johnbod ( talk) 23:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• The general category would also be overcategorization. Otto4711 ( talk) 04:25, 23 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Showjumping is indeed a word, but considering Showjumping is a redirect to Show jumping, and the categories Category:Show jumping and Category:Show jumping riders both exist, rename for consistency. Kbdank71 18:05, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Showjumping horses to Category:Show jumping horses

Nominator's rationale: Rename per show jumping being a two word phrase not a single word. Collectonian ( talk) 04:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Rename per nom. JPG-GR ( talk) 05:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom. Doczilla ( talk) 09:42, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Oppose It is legitimate to join words (or hyphenate them) where a compund noun is used as an adjective. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:38, 24 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Persons expelled from school ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete not really a needed category: people have been expelled from various schools for various reasons: Jews were expelled from schools in Germany, for example, so there is no "sting" associated with this category and people who are in here now have little in common, and those who could be in here less. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:53, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category serves no encyclopedic purpose and doesn't serve much use as a grouping tool. JPG-GR ( talk) 04:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Delete Come on! -- Rtphokie ( talk) 19:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Speedy delete Pavel Vozenilek ( talk) 11:04, 26 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 18:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Radio stations serving the Charlotte area to Category:Radio stations in the Charlotte, North Carolina area

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with other geographic radio station categories (removing "serving") and disambiguating Charlotte to Charlotte, North Carolina. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:04, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Leave As Is - Having "serving" says those station serve that area. If you take out "serving" you could, in essence, add a very small AM station to that list that doesn't serve Charlotte, but is part of the Charlotte DMA. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 14:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

If a station is part of the Charlotte market, it should be included in this category. This is the only category that is worded in this manner, and therefore should be adjusted to match the others. JPG-GR ( talk) 17:37, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I doubt it is the only category worded that way. You also have to take into account the vast Charlotte area. Trust me, it's huge. WATA-AM 1450 in Boone, NC is part of the Charlotte DMA but it's signal doesn't even touch Charlotte or the Metro Charlotte area. Not by a long shot. So, having the "serving" in there is necessary. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 17:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Doubt all you like. I just went through all the US geo categories last night and it IS the only one. JPG-GR ( talk) 18:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

That's fine, but I am still voting against it. When the Charlotte DMA goes from the NC/SC border to the NC/VA border, then it is WAY too big for such a vague category. Stations that serve Charlotte should remain in the current category, the rest should go into the state category. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 18:38, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom. An option that could be considered would be to include 'Arbitron market' since that is what this probably covers. So that would mean a rename to something like Category:Radio stations in the Charlotte, North Carolina Arbitron market area. A longer but very unambiguous name. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to the standard Category:Radio stations in Charlotte, North Carolina. If that example AM doesn't serve Charlotte then that's what Category:Radio stations in North Carolina is for and if it's in the DMA then it will show up in {{ Charlotte Radio}} so people will still be able to find it easily and efficiently. Over-stretching a geographical category lessens its usefulness. - Dravecky ( talk) 06:29, 27 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Radio stations in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area. Kbdank71 18:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Milwaukee area radio stations to Category:Radio stations in the Milwaukee area

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with other radio station geographic categories. JPG-GR ( talk) 02:02, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Why not Category:Radio stations in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area? Vegaswikian ( talk) 04:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
  • "Wisconsin" shouldn't be necessary based on the fact that Milwaukee redirects right to Milwaukee, Wisconsin, making it the more popular/often/etc. use. JPG-GR ( talk) 04:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Vegaswikian's proposed name using "Milwaukee, Wisconsin". Article is at Milwaukee, Wisconsin and main category is Category:Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Snocrates 07:14, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment You are failing to acknowledge the precedent set by all other categories of this type that do not require this further distinction, including Category:Radio stations in Duluth-Superior and Category:Radio stations in Green Bay-Appleton in the state of Wisconsin alone. Why not just rename it Category:Radio stations in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States then? JPG-GR ( talk) 07:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

No, I'm not failing to recognize it. I prefer consistency within a parent category, its main article, and its subcategories over consistency between brother categories. The answer to your question is that the main article is not at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States nor is the parent category at Category:Milwaukee, Wisconsin, United States. Snocrates 07:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I also prefer consistency within parent categories, which is why I have nominated all inconsistent categories I have found in Category:Radio stations in the United States by state for renaming to more consistent versions.. I fear that you may be looking at the smaller picture (Wisconsin) rather than the bigger one (United States). Your reasoning for your preference does not mesh with the many other geo sub-categories. JPG-GR ( talk) 07:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Um, thanks for questioning my reasoning, but no, I still prefer Vegaswikian's rename proposal. There are usually multiple parents, and I happen to prefer consistency within the city categories over consistency in the radio categories. Snocrates 07:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

After sleeping on it, if including the state is more consistent over the greater range of WP (which it does appear to be), as soon as this discussion is completed, if the result is that the state should be included, I'll propose the non-state included ones to add the state per the precedent. JPG-GR ( talk) 18:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Leave As Is - Category:Milwaukee area radio stations says exactly what it is..."Milwaukee Area Radio Stations". We don't need to add two other words and rearrange them to say the same thing. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 14:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

For consistency amongst similar categories, we should - whether it be via my suggestion or that of Vegaswikian. JPG-GR ( talk) 17:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom, we need consistency in these category names. Also, Milwaukee is large enough that adding the state name to the category really isn't necessary. Any radio market than needs it's state included to make it clear which city is being referred to probably doesn't need to be categorized that deeply anyway.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 19:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Radio stations in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area to match parent category. This is what consensus has been for a long time. The position that radio markets should be an exception without any reason to change consensus is not a reason to leave this alone. Vegaswikian ( talk) 01:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in the Milwaukee area - "Wisconsin" is completely superfluous. -- Calton | Talk 17:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in the Milwaukee, Wisconsin area to match parent category. This is current consensus and the City, State format is where all of these sub-cats should and most likely will be after all the nominations are made. - Dravecky ( talk) 06:24, 27 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 18:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Spokane-Coeur d'Alene radio stations to Category:Radio stations in the Spokane, Washington area

Nominator's rationale: Two-part explanation here: (1) rename to begin with "Radio stations in", similar to the majority of state geographic radio station subcategories, (2) remove Coeur d'Alene, as Spokane is the much more well known name for the geographic area and the Coeur d'Alene is unnecessary. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:59, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I'm not convinced the name shouldn't include Coeur d'Alene, mainly because it is in a different state than Spokane. Shouldn't the category be a subcategory of both the Washington radio station category and the Idaho radio station category? Including a category with only the name of Spokane in an Idaho radio station category wouldn't be the best solution. Snocrates 07:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment as the category is not currently nor ever has been part of Category:Radio stations in Idaho, I'm not sure that your point is relevant. JPG-GR ( talk) 07:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

No, it is relevant. Just because the category is not so classified now doesn't mean it should not be. I think I implied that in my comment. (Check) Yes, yes, I did. In this case it clearly should be in both, since the cities in question are in different states. Snocrates 07:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I know the two areas are close, but is there any reason why this category should not be split into Category:Radio stations in the Spokane, Washington area and Category:Radio stations in the Coeur d'Alene Idaho area? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegaswikian ( talk • contribs) 04:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep As Is - Some of the stations are in Coeur d'Alene and regardless if Spokane is "much more well known", that is not a valid enough reason to rename a category. I suggest the category also be added to Category:Radio stations in Idaho as well. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 14:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• merge per nom. We need some consistency in the naming of these categories.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 19:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and create subcats for the Idaho and Washington stations. It appears that these are part of the Spokane (Arbitron #92) market so that they need to be in one category. By using two subcats, we can maintain a proper category tree for the stations by state. Not sure that a rename of this multi state category is necessary. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:49, 24 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Georgia (U.S. state) college radio stations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Category currently only includes a single template. As this is the only of the 50 states with this particular specific type of category, better to include articles (if any) in both Category:Radio stations in Georgia (U.S. state) and Category:College radio stations in the United States instead. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Support - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 14:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Support - -- Rtphokie ( talk) 19:43, 22 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Kbdank71 17:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Low power FM radio stations in Florida ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - Unnecessarily specific category and underpopulated. LPFM radio stations are often non-notable in the first place, so a category for them in a particular state (and the only of the 50 to have such a category) is a little overboard. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:47, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep and rename to Category:Low-power FM radio stations in Florida - (Note: I just added Category:Low-power FM radio stations as a parent cat.) First, I don't think notability is at issue here, since these articles do exist; if they all end up getting deleted, we can revisit this category. Secondly, full-power stations are divided up by state, and it makes just as much sense here. Cgingold ( talk) 12:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Leave As Is - The category is populated and discussion of the stations "notability" is not for this page. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 14:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete, 3 of these stations have been tagged for merge into their parent network pages (they provide no local content and are not notable), one station has been AFD'd. That would leave 7 notable stations. What is it about LP stations that would warrant their own category for each state? Do class A stations warrant their own category? Class D? Where do we stop? There just aren't enough LP stations to warrent special by-state categorization.-- Rtphokie ( talk) 20:19, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and rename per Cgingold. If the articles exist to populate the category, the notability debate is moot, for a CFD, anyway, until they have been deleted. Snocrates 04:24, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Far too specific a categorization. -- Calton | Talk 17:43, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom and the wise words of Rtphokie. - Dravecky ( talk) 06:32, 27 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. Kbdank71 17:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:People from Van Nuys, California to Category:People from Los Angeles

Nominator's rationale: Merge, Van Nuys is not an independent city, it is a neighborhood of Los Angeles, hence our article is at Van Nuys, Los Angeles, California. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:40, 22 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. This is not saying remove all subcategories from Kent, just this one, which as the nominator correctly states, has only one article. Recreation permissible if more articles are found/written. Kbdank71 17:19, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:People from Edenbridge, Kent to Category:People from Kent

Nominator's rationale: Merge, currently only one entry with little expectation of expansion: Edenbridge has 8000 population. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:36, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - Kent is too large and populous not to have subcategories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:41, 24 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename. Kbdank71 17:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:People by county in Louisiana to Category:People by parish in Louisiana

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Louisiana is divided into parishes not counties. This cat, only created yesterday is empty if it remains so by the end of this dicussion, a delete would not be inappropriate. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Rename since Louisiana has parishes and not counties. This fact alone makes a rename indisputable. -- Pparazorback ( talk) 20:20, 22 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Paul Bourget ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete unnecessary eponymous cat currently housing just his portrait. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:31, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Johnbod ( talk) 23:24, 22 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Party switching in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete many people have switched (political) parties in the United States, leading to an often trivial intersection among people who did X when X is not uncommon. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:30, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Delete - This is also malformed. The category is named in the form of a topic, like an article, rather than being named explicitly so we know what the category contains. So there's no clear relationship between the articles in the category and the category itself. They could be people who switched, people who oppose switching, people who notably never switched despite strong urgings to do so. -- Lquilter ( talk) 21:00, 22 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Radio stations in Seattle, Washington. Kbdank71 17:15, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:Seattle radio stations to Category:Radio stations in Seattle

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with similar geographically-based radio station categories. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Leave As Is - Category:Seattle radio stations says exactly what it is..."Seattle Radio Stations". We don't need to rearrange the words, plus add one, to say the same thing. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 14:12, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

For consistency amongst similar categories, we should. JPG-GR ( talk) 17:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Radio stations in Seattle, Washington. This should match it's grandparent of Category:Seattle, Washington. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename per Vegaswikian's proposed name. Snocrates 04:19, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in Seattle - "Washington" is ludicrously superfluous. -- Calton | Talk 17:45, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in Seattle, Washington per Vegaswikian to match the Seattle, Washington article and category as well as to maintain consistency across the whole of the WPRS. Some may find it "ludicrously superfluous" but remember that Paris is a city in Texas, Lebanon is a city in Missouri, and Manhattan is a city in Kansas. Being specific with U.S. city names is both useful and important for this sort of categorization. - Dravecky ( talk) 06:36, 27 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Radio stations in Lubbock, Texas. Kbdank71 17:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Radio stations in Lubbock to Category:Radio stations in Texas

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated, Lubbock market isn't large enough to warrant it's own category Rtphokie ( talk) 01:17, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Lubbock, Texas currently has 18 specifically licensed radio stations, six of which have articles. Neither is enough to warrant this subcategory. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:23, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep. 18 (potential) articles is not enough for its own category?? How many is? Also keep as part as an overall scheme of classifying radio stations by market in Texas. Snocrates 07:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC) Agree with Vegaswikian's rename proposal below. Snocrates 21:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Comment - I'm thinking 25 is a good number to start with.

• Keep - per Snocrates comments above. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 14:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Rename to Category:Radio stations in Lubbock, Texas to match the parent Category:Lubbock, Texas. Vegaswikian ( talk) 04:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in Lubbock, Texas to match the parent category and for consistency across all geographical categories. - Dravecky ( talk) 06:38, 27 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Radio stations in Waco, Texas. Kbdank71 17:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Radio stations in Waco to Category:Radio stations in Texas

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated. Waco market isn't large enough to warrant a category Rtphokie ( talk) 01:16, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Merge per nom. Waco, Texas currently has 8 specifically licensed radio stations, four of which have articles. Neither is enough to warrant this subcategory. JPG-GR ( talk) 01:24, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep as part of overall scheme of categorizing radio stations in Texas by market. 8 (potential) articles is plenty to justify the existence of a category. Agree with Vegaswikian's rename proposal below. Snocrates 07:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Comment - How many is enough in your opinion?

If it's part of an overall scheme of classifying stations by location, 8 is certainly within the bounds of justifying a category. Snocrates 04:18, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Actually in the past, 1 or 2 has been accepted as sufficient for a part of a series. Vegaswikian ( talk) 07:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Keep - per Snocrates comments above. - NeutralHomer ^{T: C} 14:13, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in Waco, Texas to match parent category. Vegaswikian ( talk) 20:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Rename to Category:Radio stations in Waco, Texas to match the parent category and for consistency across all geographical categories. - Dravecky ( talk) 06:39, 27 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kbdank71 17:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Category:Blue Star Memorial Highways ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Being a Blue Star Memorial Highway is not a defining characteristic for highways; it's a memorial designation that's rarely used by the public. NE2 01:05, 22 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was keep. Kbdank71 17:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Propose renaming Category:United States state legislation to Category:United States legislation by state

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This would make it similar to other categories that are "by state." — Markles 00:26, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. Wouldn't it then have to be Category:United States state legislation by state? The name needs to make it clear that this is not legislation of the federal United States; it is legislation of states in the United States. The existing name is relatively clear on that point, I think, and I don't see a need to use the "by state" terminology, especially since there is only one subcategory right now. Snocrates 07:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC) reply
• Keep and populate - There ought to be 49 other subcategories in this category, which should (probably) not have articles of its own (as opposed to categories). Peterkingiron ( talk) 23:45, 24 December 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.