php-deluxe.net - description Categories for deletion Log 2005 September 25

Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 25

== September 25 ==

=== ===

Delete. 04:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Terrible naming aside, it falls under overcategorization, and could easily be solved by throwing them into hero and villain categories. 20:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Wholly agreed. Delete. -- 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. -- Reinyday, 01:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *COMMENT wasn t this deleted before 18:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC) **The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Category%3AVillains+turned+heroes+%28fictional%29 deletion log] doesn t think so. - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps the title of the category was slightly different, but I seem to remember this being deleted. 16:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. Not very useful. 18:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 23:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete 17:25, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete 23:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep It refers to a fascinating pattern in serial fiction: villains who are popular come back and inevitably become heroes! Throwing into hero and villain categories would miss the point. -- 20:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC) NB: I m biased since I m the one who created the category. *Keep. I agree with PhS; this is a notable phenomenon in serial fiction. Apostrophe s solution is no solution; exactly how does he propose that category tags for heroes and villains be applied to convey that this character started as a villain and turned into a hero Since it looks like this category will be deleted, however, I suggest that a 16:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

No consensus (no change). 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This is not a proper category for British celebs who are actually barred from being here, according to the opening sentence and the way itr is being policed. It is a holding cat for those articles which cannot be categorised anywhere else. Go put the rubbish somewhere else and either delete or turn into a real category 18:00, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. It s purpose is clearly explained. Somewhere else would have to be 18:32, 25 September 2005 (UTC) :vote struck, placed before moved to Cfd, user voted again below. 05:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *: Why the wrong place People can vot6e on the subject here, 18:39, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *::If this was a category for British cerlebrituies I would be happy with it, but it is not. I would like it to be a category for celebrities, containing all British celebrities, and making that info easily accessible, instead of having to trawl through the rubbishy non celebs who populate it and then trawl through other categories looking for real British celebs. At the moment you can t find British celebs in Wikipedia, signifying a breakdown in the cat system, 18:46, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment filed in the wrong place - relisting here. 19:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep as above. However this is a highly problematic category type and their is clearly great reluctance to use it. Apart from Britain only Hong Kong, Singapore and Canada appear to have celebrity categories. The Hong Kong category is being used in the same way as the British one (entries only for people famous for unusual reasons, other types of celebrity linked in the blurb) while the other two contain the obvious subcategories. Putting mainstream celebrities directly into such categories is out of the question because they would become ludicrously large and the category would become useless as a means of giving a home to the oddballs, who would be lost amid a sea of actors and singers. If someone wants to add the singer, actor etc subcategories I won t object to that 00:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Strong delete. Move the articles to . It is standard to put people in the Fooish people category if they do not fall into any of the subcategories. -- Reinyday, 01:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC) **Keep That simply reflects that fact that the category system is simply immature and incomplete. We should have more specific categories for everyone. 18:34, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep. As per CalJW s comments this is a problematic category. However, it is clearly not a catch-all category but designed to be used for people famous for being famous . Such people constitute a class of person (alas) in modern (British) society and some of those currently in there (e.g. 15:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete seems point of view to me and hard to police. I can t quite see how anyone can meet the criteria, it being a paradox. 18:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC) **That much worse IMO. It is a modern term and invites people to add all sorts of people who have other categories - and it will be much harder to justify keeping them out than it is with the current form. 03:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete as it stands. For this to function correctly, it needs remaking over. The information extracted by its current formulation is not encyclopaedic, and probably doens t even get mentioned in the preamble s words in the articles. A cat for Brit celebs is (barely) workable if careful thought is given to it, but not in its present form. However, a rename per Steve block is a weak second choice. - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment there is also and which are basically the same concept. It seems like overcat ing, 19:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *reclassify and delete. 20:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC) **Dandies might do, but Beauties is hopelessly pov. If you can think of more subcategories which aren t too pov, please go ahead and create them, rather than abusing the people who have done the previous spadework. By the way, I ve read a book about Georgiana, and I think that apart from Duchess , celebrity is the best term that can be used to classify her. 03:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete, and use more specific and meaningful categories instead. - 04:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep for now. Has 17:27, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. — 16:29, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

===Film by director===

Rename to 04:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

16:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *I ll support any of them, although I m partial to Films by Powell and Pressburger . — • 2005-09-25 18:46 *I vote for Films by Powell and Pressburger . 00:08, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *No problem with most of them where they had the joint title Written, Produced and Directed by Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger but the earlier films like 03:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Films by... is the simplest and clearest. - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename to Films by... 00:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename to Films by Powell and Pressburger . Other similar duos are Joel and Ethan Coen, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer (Imagine Entertainment), James Ivory and Ismail Merchant (Merchant Ivory Productions), and the Wachowski brothers. It will probably apply to Hammer & Tongs as well, at some point. Director/producer partnerships seem to be the most common.

Rename to Films by... . 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

===Subcategories of sports venues by country categories===

Rename some (American football, Baseball, Basketball, and Golf). 17:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To align with Man-made objects subrule of , rename all by country subcats of

(see separate section below)

to thing in country format (and update ) 15:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *I propose additional renaming: That s a lot of bot time, and it seems to me if you re going to bother recatting all those articles, we should be sure we like the names we re switching to. I am fine with changing the subcategories of from Fooian venues to Venues in Foo , but the word venues or something else should be chosen as a standard. Currently you have: , , , , , and . Shouldn t we decide on a standard between football stadiums, football stadia, football venues, and football grounds I personally like football venues because it is the phrase used by the parent category. -- Reinyday, 00:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC) **To be more explicit:

: subcats to be American football venues in

: subcats to be Baseball venues in

: subcats to be Basketball venues in

: subcats to be Cricket grounds in

: subcats to be Football (soccer) venues in

: subcats to be Golf clubs and courses in

: subcats to be Car race tracks in

-- ) 03:40, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename all. I m glad there is some fruit from cat titles discussions. And venue is a good word to standardise to. - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all. 00:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose proposed name for football venues and proposed name for motor racing circuits, both of which are U.S./North America centric. It is not necessary to mention soccer outside the U.S. and one or two other countries. IMO they should be Motor racing circuits and football venues , with exceptions for the few where these are not the local terms. The car race tracks categories were created by a Canadian. It s taken me a while to spot this one, and this sort of thing is exactly why this should not be a speedy. This is in line with preference for local usage for national transport(ation) categories, which is remarkably uncontroversial. 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC) **This is NOT a speedy, so I don t understand your complaint. **(comments on football in and motor racing circuits categories moved to separate sections, below. -- ) 17:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Comment: 19:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

This is really hard to vote coherently on all proposals!

**Support non-contentious renames -

: subcats to be Baseball venues in

: subcats to be Basketball venues in

: subcats to be Cricket grounds in

: subcats to be Golf clubs and courses in

looks silly.

:-- 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *One objection Don t rename the Chinese golf courses category as proposed if that upsets local sensibilities. 19:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose, 10:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *Closing note listing as proposed except those superceded, and the temporarily opposed rename of Chinese golf courses. 17:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

No consensus (no change). 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Separated for ease of discussion purposes (relevant comments from above copied or moved here). -- ) 17:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

: subcats to be Football (soccer) venues in

*(copied from above) Rename all. I m glad there is some fruit from cat titles discussions. And venue is a good word to standardise to. - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *(copied from above) Rename all. 00:41, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *(copied from above) Rename as suggested. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *(copied from above) Oppose proposed name for football venues and proposed name for motor racing circuits, both of which are U.S./North America centric. It is not necessary to mention soccer outside the U.S. and one or two other countries. IMO they should be Motor racing circuits and football venues , with exceptions for the few where these are not the local terms. The car race tracks categories were created by a Canadian. It s taken me a while to spot this one, and this sort of thing is exactly why this should not be a speedy. This is in line with preference for local usage for national transport(ation) categories, which is remarkably uncontroversial. 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Football (soccer) venues in foo places the more widely used term in a superior position, while preserving understandability for American readers. The point is not where the venues are, but where the reader is. This compromise is already in use for the parent category name (which is in turn a subcat of , which includes both kinds).

***It is fine as a disambiugator at that level, but not for more detailed categories. By the time American readers reach the national categories, they will know they are reading about soccer . I strongly object to your habit of latching onto any category names that you approve of as evidence that the changes you propose are not changes of policy at all, while ignoring the names of other relevant categories which point in a different direction, even if there are far more of them. 06:11, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **** By the time American readers reach ... implies a category visitation order that I believe there s no reason to assume. A reader could very well reach a list of country-related categories and, in this list, see a category named Football venues in ... where the context is the country (not the sport). Most Americans (I m sorry to say) would expect this to be a category of American football (not soccer) stadiums. What does it hurt to have the disambiguator And, BTW, please adhere to ) 17:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *****Please do not make false allegations of personal attacks as they may themselves appear to breach 00:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose proposed name for football venues. In most of the world, the sport is known as football, so, the name of the category should be football venues . The word soccer is redundant. 03:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Oppose renaming football venues. That would be a change of policy, not a standardisation exercise. 10:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC) **Neutral: Football means different things in different places, so the football-related articles may need special cases to be sensible in context. However, I note that the article is called Football (soccer) so for consistency, using that full phrase in the category is reasonable.

: subcats to be Football (soccer) venues in

:-- 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose inclusion of the word soccer in any category where it is not included already as it is not needed. 19:21, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose adding the word soccer to any more countries. 16:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Comment All the votes for change were made when users were under the false impression that they were simply being asked to endorse existing policy, but there is no policy on this point. Therefore I believe they should be discounted unless reaffirmed. No one has voted for change since I pointed out the error. 00:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose adding the word soccer unless it s local usage, and disambiguation with other sport, e.g. rugby football, Canadian football, American football, is necessary. — 19:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename subs to Motor racing venues in country . 16:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Separated for ease of discussion purposes (relevant comments from above copied or moved here). -- ) 17:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

: subcats to be Car race tracks in

Motor racing includes both automobile and motorcycle, and circuit in the US would be a series of races (for example, the NASCAR circuit is the series of NASCAR races at a variety of individual race tracks). To use Motor racing circuits in the United States as a category for individual tracks would simply be wrong. I understand motor racing circuit is what an individual automobile race track is called (at least in the UK), so it seems some compromise is in order here. The car race track suggestion merely reflected the existing naming.

) 04:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

***The European and Australian ones should be motor racing circuits . Please stop trying to rush things through as though they are merely confirmation of existing policy when it is unlikely that a discussion has ever taken place. IMO these should be have been dealt with one at a time so that the issues can be discussed. 06:08, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **Support Motor racing circuits in country , (but oppose car race tracks in country )

, with many tracks included in both.

:-- 07:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *IMO, the best approach in these sorts of cases is to avoid using a US-centric or UK-centric term if something else can be used that is US/UK neutral. How about Automobile race courses in foo Is this sufficiently US/UK neutral -- ) 17:45, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **Unfortunately not. Automobile is the least neutral term which has featured in this discussion. We say car in the UK (which includes what Americans call light trucks ). 19:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) ***The question is not what do you say, but what can you unambiguously understand. Do you immediately comprehend automobile race course to be the same as motor racing circuit or is it such a foreign phraseology that you have no idea what it might mean I immediately understand motor racing circuit , but NOT as a single race course ( circuit meaning a series of races, as opposed to the the closed loop layout of an individual course). -- ) 18:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC) **** CommentThe point is that non-Americans do not want to unambiguously understand when using Wikipedia that it is entirely controlled by Americans and the rest of us are mere guests whose own version of English is considered of less value than American English. That is why there is a policy that British English has equal status. 00:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *****... and vice versa (which is precisely why I m arguing against Motor racing circuits ). I assume this post means you agree with me. -- ) 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose use of car race tracks for any outside the US (and maybe Canada). Use motor racing circuits for all the others. 19:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose car race tracks except where it is local usage. 16:46, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Comment All the votes for change were made when users were under the false impression that they were simply being asked to endorse existing policy, but there is no policy on this point. Therefore I believe they should be discounted unless reaffirmed. No one has voted for change since I pointed out the error. 00:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Possible compromise: Would everybody be comfortable enough with and The language sounds clumsy, but it seems maybe everybody can accept it. -- 01:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC) **How about Motor racing venues This would seem to include (um) places where motorcycles (um) compete against each other by trying to go faster as well as places (um) other motorized vehicles that aren t motorcycles might engage in similar activities. Such places are called in the US car race tracks , speedways , drag strips (these are straight ones, usually 1/4 mile [about 400m] long), and in the UK apparently called motor racing circuits . This suggestion favors neither US nor UK terminology, either of which (IMO) we should try to avoid. -- ) 02:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC) ***I support motor racing venues . I would not consider a 02:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename as motor racing venues. — 19:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename Now supporting motor racing venues . 00:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *Closing note although it was mentioned to rename the parent, and it would be obvious to do so, it was not tagged as part of the umbrella. It would need sufficient notice in order to be renamed. 16:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Delete. 17:01, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. Overcategorization. Currently contains only one article. 15:49, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete 17:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

===Subcategories of ===

Rename all subcats to Airports in foo . 17:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

To align with Man-made objects subrule of ) 15:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename all per nom. - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all. No argument. 00:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename as per nom. 21:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename as per nom. 23:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all 16:48, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename as per nom. -- 09:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

===Subcategories of ===

Rename all subcats Forts in Foo . 17:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Forts have locations, not nationalities; in addition, control of a fort may change hand one or more times over the course of its history. Rename 15:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC) :So, this is a request to move all subcats to ) 15:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Agree. -- ) 15:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment if so, please tag each category affected, to give due notice, or none of them will be changed. 15:45, 25 September 2005 (UTC) **I m not sure this is necessary under the rules spelled out at ) 15:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC) ***I object to any renaming without tagging. That doesn t even apply to speedies. 01:31, 26 September 2005 (UTC) ***I too object to any renaming without tagging. We have watchlists for a reason, and people will be able to rightly protest the rename if they weren t told their category was under consideration. - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all per nom, and establish said rule. - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all. No argument. 00:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename as per nominator. 20:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

No consensus (no change). 17:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This looks like a biased category. This rating probably only applies to U.S. A movie may have various ratings in different countries. 14:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete - 14:15, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete This rating is used in several countries, but usage obviously varies. 18:36, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Highly unmaintainable. PG is used in more countries than the US. -- 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. No argument. 00:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete 17:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Keep. I think we should keep it. All we have to do is change the name to Movies Rated PG In the United States. People who know what the ratings of these movies can create ones for canada, africa, uk, mexico, australia, iran, china, japan, russia, and all the other copuntries can see what these movies are rated. An Iwant more and more people to know the US culture of movies and other countries. I always think it s fun to see what other countries rate our movies. Like canada, the us can rate

Delete or else Keep and Rename. If renamed, should say films instead of movies for consistency with other categories such as 21:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Edited to remove my Delete vote. Instantnood has definitely convinced me that Wikipedia should track this information, and with a category. 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

***Just curious, but in what way would a simple list of movie titles and infoboxes in each movie article not do a better job than having monster-sized category lists in every article-- 15:02, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ****How would having to make two edits to accomplish the same thing do a better job than being able to make the edit in only one place It seems to me that, at best, your solution can only do as good a job, not better. 15:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

request for comments : I d like to ask those voting on or reading this CFD to also consider whether or not 14:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC))

*Delete Highly unmaintainable. 08:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep renamed 19:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete. This isn t IMDb. 04:50, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep and rename per Bhoeble and Tcatron565. — 09:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. While I agree that it will be fun to see how each country grades each movie, having a long list of categories is not a good idea either. An infobox might be a better alternative.-- 09:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

**Comment: It s a good idea too.. to have that information provided in the film infobox template. The function of categories cannot be replaced, however. — 11:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC) ***Comment Categories may have certain functions, but they are not practical for all uses. It is simply not practical to have each movie page having an overwelmingly long list of categories, each with a rather long category name to boot. I do not think the ends justify the means.-- 06:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete Agree with huaiwei. 23:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC) **Comment: Any idea how can one look for films rated PG — 06:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ***Comment: Go to their local store and check.-- 06:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ****Well I mean a list of films of a certain rating on Wikipedia.

— 07:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *****Same answer.-- 07:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ******Alright. The question is: where can one find a list of films of a certain rating, on Wikipedia. Are you saying the person should check on Wikipedia with a computer at a local store, or the person should check at a local store operated by Wikipedia — 08:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *******In case you arent familiar with a music store, it is usually a physical space in which people can walk in and find titles with their respective ratings on the labels. Some shops also do shoppers a favour by shelving the titles according to classification. And no, I dont think many of these stores provide a computer for people to check up wikipedia before finding the relevant title in the store. Asking the staff usually produces a quicker and more up-to-date answer.-- 09:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ********Obviously I am not asking, and am not interested in, how to look for films by ratings in a local store. What I asked was how can one look for articles of films by ratings on Wikipedia . — 10:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *********My responses are self-explanatory, and I do not think I need to comment further. Either accept them, or agree to disagree.-- 10:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ***Comment: It can also be found on IMDb [http://www.imdb.com/Listcertificates=USA:PG&&heading=14;USA:PG]. -- 06:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC) ****Thanks. There s no reason for Wikipedia not to keep similar listings. — 08:32, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep and Rename per above. 07:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *Comment Although these ratings are done by 17:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 04:43, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Tagged 24 Aug, but not listed here. 09:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose -- Kazakh is far more common than Kazakhistani 12:51, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Support. Look at the explanation from August 24. - 14:12, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Support. Kazakh is the ethnicity, Kazakhstani is the nationality. -- 15:29, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Support per Neutrality. - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment It would make sense to keep and rename to 00:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Support. 00:30, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename The two could co-exist, but there is probably too much overlap for it to be helpful. 19:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **Comment: According to 09:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep both categories. — 09:30, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 04:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This is another transport(ation) category which wasn t actually amended after it was agreed to switch them to local usage. Tanzania is a former British colony so it uses Commonwealth English. The relevant ministry is called the Ministry of Communications and Transport. Rename 08:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Establish a rule at 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) **Thanks for the vote, but I disapprove of the attempt to expand speedy category renaming, and there are some doubtful cases in this category so it is particularly inappropriate in this case. We can t just change all Commonwealth countries for example, because Canada and Ireland would be both wrong, though in opposite ways. 03:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC) ***I meant establish the agreement you refer to: ...to switch them to local usage , rather than to a particular orientation . They re going to come here repeatedly, and get nodded through. Why not do it in two days (or on sight) rather than in 7 - 03:40, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. A speedy rule for appropriate naming to locality wouldn t go amiss, either, no. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Delete [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Special%3ALog&type=&user=&page=Category%3ASport+shooters+by+discipline deleted] as empty. 08:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Empty category, tagged 21 Sept, but not listed here. 08:22, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete 19:13, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No argument. 00:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Merge. 04:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Empty category, tagged 21 Sept but not listed here. 08:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *NOTE I am adding 19:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

*The following articles could be added to this category, in which case it wouldn t be empty: ::Commonwealth Building (Portland, Oregon) ::Portland Public Service Building ::Fox Tower (Portland, Oregon) ::1000 Broadway (Portland, Oregon) ::Congress Center (Portland, Oregon) ::Architecture in Portland, Oregon ::Portland Public Service Building ::Wells Fargo Center (Portland, Oregon) ::US Bancorp Tower (Portland, Oregon) ::Concordia University (Portland, Oregon) ::Riverdale High School (Portland, Oregon) :I vote keep and add the appropriate articles. - 09:16, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*If we look at 09:31, 25 September 2005 (UTC) **That works for me. - 09:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC) ***The schools are cat d seperately, I checked the other structures.. by state and they didnt have them. Some of them are cat d under skyscrapers by state so I just added that cat as a sub. 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Populate and keep as above. You can be bold about doing so, I think. - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *:*I assume you meant as above to be my suggestion Which I just created the other cats, most other states have them and I m sure there are plenty of other notable structures to add to them.. 19:41, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename per Who. The parent can include the articles in 00:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested by Who. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename. All of the other categories in have the word Oregon in their names. I believe the title shoul be Category:Buildings in Portland, Oregon. Either that or Buildings of Portland, Oregon. The bottom line is that there are now two Portland buildings categories and there only needs to be one. :Sorry I did not sign my vote! -- 22:52, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 04:50, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Theatres don t have nationalities, people do. Rename 06:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename. 06:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename for consistency, per nominator 02:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Establish a rule at 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) **I m sure sure what sort of rule you re suggesting. One that says something like x by country categories should be named X by country (not Nationality x ), or a rule pertaining to the subcategories of ) 13:22, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Oppose It is only in 16:03, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 16:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Merge. 04:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Merge into the much better populated 06:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Merge as per nominator. -- 22:44, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge as suggested. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Merge. Btw, how about renaming other cats in 08:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree: If the first word of the category refers to the country, it is easier to find alphabetically. If your suggestiong were adopted, all subcategories would be filed under T . - 16:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

***Your concern is easily addressed by using the wikimarkup 16:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Oppose: Consider a merge to 16:14, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **That isn t a problem. Categories can be placed anywhere on an alphabetical list using |. That is standard practice. 19:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Support proposal 19:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 04:54, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Conflicts with the format of the other 13 categories in 06:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename. No argument. 21:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. I thought originally that this would be a category of articles about statistical trends for crime in Austrlia, so...

23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename -- brings into line with the rest of the national crime category naming conventions. -- 23:37, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 04:55, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

All of the other subcategories of . Two state subcats have been created so far and let s rename them in the same way:

06:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename. 10:34, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename. 08:11, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all as per nom. 13:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all. No argument. 21:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename 17:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Delete. 05:00, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Non-standard category. It contained 9 articles which I have moved to a new 05:35, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. 05:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Linguistics does not have nationality. 21:58, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 05:12, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

All the articles are about shows in Australia. 05:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename, I guess there isn t any other country that does these 05:55, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *: There s still a 08:40, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename 17:29, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename It hasn t been nominated for deletion. 20:34, 28 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename 23:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename. When I created the category I expected to find articles for British and NZ Royal shows, but those articles seem not to exist. -- 23:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

===Buildings and structures in Australia===

Rename all. 05:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Following the recent mass renamings of country, US state and British county categories to the standard Buildings and structures form, the Australian categories should also be renamed Buildings and structures in X :

I just creatd the Perth category myself, so that s correct already. 05:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename all. 05:56, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all: I created the Adelaide category in a moment of pretension, and neglected to rename it. I still think it more felicitous, but. :)-- 06:06, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all. No argument. 22:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename as proposed. -- 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

===Institutions by country and the overall category===

Change as proposed. 05:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Following on from my nomination of below I have decided to address the remainder of these now. Institutions is a poor name for a category in a national menu because people interpret it in totally inconsistent ways: *As being only for organisations with the word institute or institution in their name. Example: the Iranian category as nominated separately below. This is a random attribute and it is better to use the term organisations so that it is clear that all organisations may be included. *To mean institutions in the sense of national institutions as in national icons . This was occurring in the British category before it was renamed and cleaned up. *To mean simply organisations. This is fine, but it is better to use the word organisations instead as it doesn t have these ambiguities. In any case, there are twice as many organisations categories and two thirds of the countries with an institutions category already have an organisations category as well, which just creates duplication, confusion and more inconsistency. I would like to see all of them merged or renamed. I have removed those items which are not organisations , but that only amounted to three or four and they are all in appropriate subject area categories in their national menus.

and delete

As can be observed from this selection of countries the four largest developed English speaking countries are all managing without an institutions category, so surely other countries don t need them either. Please also note that these categories have seen little use - they contain just a few percent of the entries they could contain - so this does not reverse a large amount of categorising effort. I prefer the s spelling, but that s a separate and smaller issue, so let s put it to one side for now please.

It follows on from this that we can also delete . There is little consistency as to which types of organisation have been placed in it, and which (far more) have not. So if we delete both, hopefully neither will come back: *delete . *merge and then delete. 02:02, 25 September 2005 (UTC) :While adding the deletion notices I found a non-standard variant/duplicate. 02:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*I support the idea that organizations as such should be in the relevant organization category. If there are still things to put into the institutions categories, they should stay, otherwise they can be deleted. If the institutions categories stick around they should contain the relevant organization categories. 00:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete/rename all as proposed. 18:35, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *What the nominator said, but why do some have z and some s I thought we were consistent within articles, so we should probably be consistent within a set of categories. - 19:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *:Let s leave that for another time please. Nominations that try to address more than one issue have a nasty habit of ending up with unresolved status even if there is a clear preference on one issue. 03:03, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename or merge as requested. 17:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Support the whole gamut. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Oppose unless we can come up with a solution avoiding a word that has different US/UK spellings. Perhaps associations would work. -- ) 23:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

**That is a needless spanner in the works. We already have far more organisations categories than institutions categories so it is not a new problem. Associations is like institutions in that it has a narrower meaning than organisations. We can sort out the spelling another time. Let s please deal with the main issue of inconsistency and muddle first. Also, it isn t really a UK/US issue as both spelling have advocates in the UK. It is just an inconsistently spelled word 08:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Strong keep. Institutions are not just organisations. It also means or mechanisms of social structure and informal social order and organization, reflecting human psychology, culture, habits and customs (from the 16:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename/merge all as requested. The fact that institutions has more than one meaning is a reason not to use it for categories rather than a reason to do so. 19:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **Comment: What about moving institutions into categories for organisations, and keep the institution categories for the another meaning (i.e. social structure, social order, culture, customs) — 19:46, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 05:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This nomination follows on from the recent renaming of British institutions as 01:04, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

*Same opinion as in vote above: move all articles about organizations to the organizations category, if nothing remains in the institutions category then delete it. 00:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC) **But there isn t an organisations category and there won t be any articles in this one when the three in it have been moved. 03:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC) ***Most likely true...but people have a few days yet though to add an Iranian institution that s not an organization. Also, voting this way now makes clear that I have no prejudice against recreation of the category later. 07:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename It s just a muddle as stated. 18:36, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename as requested. 17:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

No consensus (no change). 05:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Standardization. -- 00:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename for consistency. 05:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename since categories in the have songs at the end of the name. -- 15:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC) *Question — should there be an apostrophe in the new name, or is The Supremes being used adjectivally - 19:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC) *: The latter. 01:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename all of the rest of the category to Songs by... - that s the form we use for films, etc. , and is a lot neater both in terms of grammar and semantics. 23:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename 20:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename in reverse per James F. 21:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename in reverse per James F. for more macro consistency 17:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Closing note It would take a seperate umbrella nomination to rename the subs of , and each category would need to be tagged. This can be done by a bot by request. 05:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC)