Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 29

== September 29 ==

===Railways===

Rename all. Naming conventions candidate. 02:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

10 out of 15 categories are in the form Rail transport in which I think is the best option as it is an inclusive term. The exceptions are:

Rename all 23:53, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename all. No argument. 23:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename all, and add Rail transport in foo as the convention for subcats of ) 02:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Delete. 02:41, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I remember the primary route destinations articles coming up on articles for deletion recently and it looks like the were all deleted because this is now empty. Delete 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete. No argument. 23:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Delete all the contents were deleted -- 13:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Merge. 02:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This category was created last month, and a couple of days ago I created 23:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge as per nom - 13:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. Naming conventions candidate. 02:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard 22:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename. No argument. 23:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename and add Monasteries in foo as the convention for subcats of ) 02:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Merge. Naming conventions candidate. 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I failed to spot this non-standard of before. Rename 22:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename. No argument. 23:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Amendment It turns out that 23:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge and add Churches in foo as the convention for subcats of ) 02:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

*: Conventions shouldn t be about force , they should be guidelines. There should still be freedom of expression for people who believe there are grounds for exceptions or maybe a change to the convention. There is not so much obstruction on here that we need to use rules aggressively. Votes for the other two would go through without telling people that its the rule so they have no choice. 03:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Merge as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===Cathedrals===

Rename all. 02:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The majority of these are already in the standard in form for man-made objects, but some are not:

Rename all 22:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename all. No argument. 23:26, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all, and add Cathedrals in foo as the convention for subcats of ) 02:25, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 02:30, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I suggest renaming this category to 22:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename 22:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename ,

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

==== ==== Rename. 02:26, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

This is the only national hotels category which is not in the standard in form for man-made objects, or at least the only one that has been put in 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename. No argument. 23:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename and add Hotels in foo as the convention for subcats of ) 06:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Keep. 02:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Duplicated by 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment Those appear to be suitable sub-categories for this, not dulplicates, but do they both actually exist 22:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*: They do; there was a typo in the campus radio stations link. 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I specifically created this as a parent category to group the two categories Spinboy named above. It s not an essential category, I ll admit, but to my mind having a university and college media parent makes more sense than filing the newspaper and radio categories directly in 00:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I don t think we should have a category just for two sub-categories. -- 01:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

*: And I don t think the radio and newspaper categories should be filed directly in 02:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep No reason not to have a category with two subcategories. 20:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Keep 16:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

No consensus (no change). 02:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Inherently POV. The term LGBT rights is not a concrete political stance; it s a slogan. The equivalent for the other side would be something like 22:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete -- 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment I am unable to tell whether the alleged bias is for or against, which inclines me towards voting keep. 22:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete 23:51, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep for the same reasons it was kept when nominated about a month ago. 01:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep Perpetual renominations should be opposed. 03:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. It s an inherently POV category. -- 04:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC) **Look at the category s talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete. It is indeed a POV category, I agree with 04:32, 30 September 2005 (UTC) **Look at the category s talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *We went through this a month ago, and a month or two before that. It got kept both times. Keep, or present a far better case for its deletion than has been shown so far. And don t renominate things every time you don t like the answer you got last time. 05:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep, valid category. -- 06:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC) **Comment: How can this be a valid category when it clearly violates the 21:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC) ***Commment: Yes, I d say the category and its name are NPOV. A name like 05:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC) ***Comment: jeez I m sick of this. There have been numerous CfD nominations for this category in the past (which it has survived). Here s the gist: This category is a tricky one to name (though if you had bothered to look at the talk page you would notice that there are some other attempts at more obviously NPOV names), so the current name unfortunately relies on a sort of pun: If you re part of the opposition, you generally will oppose the idea of LGBT rights as rights. If you re against the opposition, you will see the category as defining people who are opposed to LGBT rights specifically. All this is moot, though, because again, if you had bothered to look at the talk page you d have noticed that we d nearly reached consensus on renaming the category to 22:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete. There is nothing remotely valid about this category. Those supporting it are obviously pushing some kind of political agenda. -- 17:21, 30 September 2005 (UTC) **Look at the category s talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Have a look at 01:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep for all the reasons as before. 02:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete this is a point of view category. -- 02:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **Look at the category s talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete, needs proper annotation to be useful. - 03:39, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **Look at the category s talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete. POV. 13:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **Look at the category s talk page. This vote should be about renaming, not deletion. - 22:57, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep Yet another attempt to delete this category after it has been renamed, etc, withtout actually giving a valid reason for doing so. It seems some who find the whole idea of LGBT rights intolerable just want to keep rolling the dice until they get the result they want here. ) 15:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **This is not a matter of some people finding LGBT rights intolerable. We don t have 15:33, 1 October 2005 (UTC) ***There is much talk of this category being NPOV without anyone actually giving any concrete examples or reasons as to why they think so. I think trying to delete this category time after time after demonstrates clear bias. ) 02:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC) ****Do you mean POV - 02:16, 2 October 2005 (UTC) ****I repeat: the term LGBT rights is not a concrete political stance; it s a slogan. What should be defined as LGBT rights is not something that both sides of the conflict can agree on. I don t think that e.g. 17:31, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *****Sorry, but there is nothing in the above that is itself a concrete explanation of why this category is POV, except your own sloganing, semantic games and conjecture. ) 15:57, 6 October 2005 (UTC) *Has a single person here looked at the talk page for 22:27, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep or Rename Valid cat, effort to remove it is itself, POV push. 02:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename following discussion on talk page, or bring the discussion here from the talk page. Do not delete. - 01:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Not again, please. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Keep for now, then renominate with a rename motion when an alternative name is found. There are POV issues here, but the fact remains that there are people who are self-declared or indisputable opponents of homosexuality (in that they seek to limit the influence and mainstreaming of homosexuality). The category is clearly intended to include these people (and doing so serves an encyclopedic purpose), but it needs a better name and better criteria. - ) 09:15, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Strong Keep (but would support a rename) The fact that someone opposes the principle that LGBT people should be treated fairly is a notable deviation from what most educated people would regard as normal; if that person is in a position of influence, that they hold such views is noteworthy (inclusion of people who hold little influence in this list would, on the other hand seem wrong). A better name in my opinion would be 21:56, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep Why is this constantly being relisted for deletion 01:39, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep and would support a rename to 06:35, 4 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep POV allegations unproven and not very credible. 09:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC) **What do you mean unproven The name itself is POV! What is gay rights opposition to one person is a gay icon to another. 09:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC) ***I still can t see what way it is supposed to be biased. You have to be told it is biased to see that it is, and then, like me, you might forget which way it is supposed to be biased by the following day. 11:32, 6 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete inheritly POV. 09:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC) *Comment AFAIK its better to use the cfr template when proposing a rename. 09:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC) **Sure, but this category was listed for deletion before talk about renaming was concluded. Apparently, the nominator was so offended by the category that s/he couldn t be bothered to read its talk page to notice that discussion regarding a rename was already well underway. So, for now, in order to even get to the point where a rename is possible, we have to yet again argue against this category s deletion. - 16:15, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 01:51, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard form: 21:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename. No argument. 23:38, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===Prisons===

Rename all. 01:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see all of these switched to the in form. At present only 6 out of 11 are in that form, but it is standard for man-made objects.

21:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename all. No argument. 23:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as per nom. -- 01:47, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename and add Prisons of in foo as the convention for subcats of ) 02:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

**I expect this is another typo for in like 11:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC) ***Yes (obviously). Good catch. -- ) 14:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename logical order, natural name

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 01:46, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard form: 21:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename. No argument. 23:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Sure, Rename :). 01:45, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Amend to standard form: 19:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete. No argument. 23:42, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *:I hope you mean Rename. 01:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *::Actually, I meant to vote on another section. But sure, Rename. 13:31, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

KEEP. 09:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

This is clearly nothing more than a joke and thus not worthy of inclusion. The text at the top of the category is jocular in nature and admits that no one is actually a native speaker (having to learn the language in school rather than by immersion means, by definition, that the language is not 15:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Delete 15:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep: I seriously doubt that Latin is devoid of native speakers. There are native speakers of Klingon and Esperanto; I would be highly surprised if there was no scholar out there that raised thier kid speaking Latin to them. As much as that, it s better to be consistent across languages instead of deleting some natives and not others. 15:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *:I still question whether a potential, isolated case of here or there merits a category. If the category remains, however, then a number of Wikipedia articles need to be corrected for the inaccuracy of declaring Latin and other languages 16:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *::I question whether it merits deleting a user-space category. Latin, for all practical purposes, is an extinct language, whether or not there are isolated speakers.-- 17:18, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *:: To keep the category means that You can speak Latin in your common life. It means that we have to create a new language, a new Latin, with the words that don t exist in Latin. This adaption to the modern life would include more than 3,000 words. So it would be a new language. -- 11:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *::And let me crititise Flex for bringing this up again, and especially without mentioning the previous CfD. It takes a lot more work to run a category through CfD than it does to keep an empty category around, it s deceptive not to mention a previous CfD, and it s rude and very wasteful of Wikipedia resources to bring up an article for CfD repeatedly with a short period of time.-- 23:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *:::I apologize for not mentioning the 12:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *:::A couple of questions: *:::# Does this mean you intend to keep on nominating it until it the cat get deleted (Try nominating it for deletion over Xmas... *:::# It also follows that categories can then be recreated after waiting a few weeks . *:::# Me thinks/concludes the VfD Project is somewhat broken. *::: 13:08, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *::::As I said, I just wanted this category to get a wider hearing than it did last time. I think that has already been accomplished, and if the vote is to keep, I will let it rest. -- 13:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *:::::Sorry to be so hash. Recently I had a Cat deleted by someone that didn t even bother to to enter a dialogue with the article contibutors before nominatin for deletion. 14:49, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Weak keep: since this is a category used for user pages, and not pages in the main article space, I don t see a problem with having it around for a bit of community humour. 16:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete - Per nomination. Could cause confusion. -- ) 17:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete -- 17:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete 18:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Created as part of the 19:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. As much as I love Latin and as much as I would love to see the day that it is once again a native language, I would have to vote to delete on the grounds that it is a misrepresentation to maintain that there are those for whom Latin is their native language. Being a native language implies that it is the language that parents rear their children with in a certain culture group. I am assuming that this is so for Esperanto as it is for the Hebrew language--which had been a dormant language into the early modern age. Is there another category that one could confect to replace this misrepresentation How about la-P for Latin proficient or la-F for Latin-fluid speaker Another test of a language being living and a native language is for it to continue to coin new words and idioms through everyday life. Can one point to a culture that speaks Latin as their native language 19:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC) :::As a follow-up I would think that we need to rethink deleting this category because classical Greek has a native speaker category, and classical Greek does not have any native speakers according to my definition above. Perhaps we need to define what native speaker means. If I were back in the time of the Attic poets, could I speak their Greek so that I could be understood by them and they by me 21:19, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Weak Delete. I am an inclusionist, and as such, this goes against my grain, but it is only 20:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment: This issue and there was no consensus. -- Reinyday, 20:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC) **As per 12:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete per nom. 20:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete 23:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep per 23:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete. Latin does not have any native speakers, and the template should be altered to reflect that (as I mentioned the last time this vote came up). 23:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC) **Maybe English was extinct also: For the 300 years following the Norman Conquest in 1066, the Norman kings and the high nobility spoke only a variety of French. The elite did not write in 03:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC) ***I m afraid I don t follow your argument. Obviously English did not go extinct, as its still spoken now and was therefore clearly spoken by the population during the time of French-speaking nobility. Equally obvious is the fact that the language spoken and written by those in England prior to 1066 was clearly dead by the time Geoffrey Chaucer began putting pen to paper. I would refer to 05:27, 6 October 2005 (UTC) *Strong Keep. People should be allowed to decide for themselves whether they are native speakers. They may be lying or exaggerating, which may be the case with any of the languages put in Babel boxes, but they also just might have grown up in an eccentric family of linguists that only speak Latin at home. You never know. Don t accuse people of lying or joking about their native languages just because there isn t a nation or tribe that speaks the language. The same is true of 01:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep for consistency within the Babel project, as Valiantis explains well above. 01:35, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Strong keep This motion is improper. On the merits, I repeat what I said the last time: 02:58, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep. Wikipedians have already decided to maintain the fiction that a 06:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep: The Romans laboured with the concept of zero: 08:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep: As pointed out above, why get into this argument with all the languages In fact, it might be easier just to delete the Native group of categories and make the fourth class refer to those who are totally fluent, whether native or not. To be honest, that s where I think the debate should be--about the separate existence of the fourth category and the native category for all languages. We shouldn t just go around attacking individual languages. It s bound to cause bitterness and resentment. 14:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

**I agree and would support this course of action. -- 17:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keeep: As pointed out by the person above, I think the native category should be replaced by one which denotes proficiency, not that the person speaks it as a mother tongue. I know that an overwhelming number of people speak English better than those who speak it as their mother tongue. ~ 15:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep: Harmless. 14:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep: I put myself down as native speaker since I have been reading and writing in Latin for over 10 years of my life. It s a language I use everyday in my work as a research student, and which I can read with as much fluency as English - I might venture with more fluency than some of the Native English speakers write on here 16:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep-- 16:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Keep: The relevant question to ask here is what constitutes a native speaker of a particular language. Some would say that the only requirement is for a person to have begun learning the language as a young child. This is possible even in the year 2005; I have known two people who were taught Classical Latin as youngsters. Both of them were Polish Catholics, and children of scholars, so there were reasons for doing so in their way of thinking. Some would add a qualification that a person should also be raised amongst more than a few fellow speakers, with the implication being beyond the bounds of one s immediate family. This is a bit of a problem since the only well known community of Latin speakers and users is Vatican City and Roman Catholic seminaries- if there are others, I am unaware of them. Some would even go so far as to say that to speak a language natively, there must be some sort of continuity in native speakers in order to be able to assert a valid argument for being a native speaker, giving the term a context beyond simple usage of the language. I hold with the first classification. Therefore, I vote keep .

*Keep: I suppose that someone who is can read, write, and translate, knows the language, which therefore keeps it alive. 18:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Keep: I ve been speaking Latin for more than a decade now, from a young age through my years now as a grad student in classics. I would be hesitant to say that Latin is dead, due to the fact that last summer I went to Italy for more than a month and met with a number of scholars who could not speak English, nor I their native languages. However, we were able to hold fairly exacting conversations in Latin on more than one occasion. If the only criteria the community can see is a lack of children speaking it to their parents, we are missing out on the opportunity to encourage a language which could make this transition into a large body of speakers with far less effort than many of the living languages with less than 10 speakers total today. 18:02, 30 September 2005 (SMT) *: Keep in mind that 17:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here, so I will: If I remember correctly, the original use of the plain User xx template, which puts one in the xx-N category, was for those who d admit to speaking with the proficiency of a native speaker, not necessarily one who was one. With [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=Wikipedia:Babel&diff=19531334&oldid=19086523 the introduction of the xx-4] templates splitting native speakers from those comparable to natives, presumably those near-native speakers who were using 20:10, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

*Keep: The extinction status of the native latin speakers is arguing semantics which will never be settled. I m convinced beyond reasonable doubt that at least one person in this wide world has raised a child speaking Latin first as their native tongue who is currently alive, just to spite anti-native-latinists I intend to bring my children up that way when I have them. That or klingon. :P *Keep: Why not All the arguments for keeping have already been exhausted, and they all make a reasonable amount of sense. 01:20, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Retentate! 02:49, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete Latin is not dead but super rarely is it a native language I am guessing. 18:26, 1 October 2005 (UTC)kdbuffalo

*Comment: The pronunciation of Latin is not even known to modern scholars and anyone who claims to speak it natively would in fact be speaking a modernized language based on written latin (which does not necessarily reflect common spoken latin in any way) and may or may not sound anything like the actual language. Are we hoping to encourage this sort of nonsense here 13:36, 1 October 2005 (UTC) **As Wikipedia is a written resource, I m unsure what the relevancy of how Latin is pronounced might be. The [http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%A6%96%E9%A1%B5 Chinese Wikipedia], for example, can be used by people whose spoken languages are mutually unintelligible but united by a common writing system. 17:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC) ***Are you suggesting that one can be raised as a native speaker of a language without speaking it The fact that a speaker of Cantonese and a speaker of Mandarin can communicate through written langauge (though these two dialects differ slightly grammatically as well) does not make either a speaker of the other s language, nor able to produce it. The situation with Latin does not resemble that of Chinese, anyway; there is only one form of latin grammar that is taught today anywhere, though several pronunciations. The statement is meant to illustrate the fact that a native speaker cannot arise without other speakers around, speaking, unless we re talking about the creation of new languages (creoles). 05:13, 6 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep we dont know if their will be a native speaker of latin in 10 or 100 years and as there are poeple using it we should keep it. PS to siafu their is no language that sounds the way it did 400 years ago. - 16:53, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Keep - 00:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. Harmless. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep. On the grounds that, as stated above, it is for those who write/read (or speak) with proficiency equivalent to a native. There is actually at least one truly native speaker of Latin, age 5. Had the pleasure of meeting her at the UKY Conventiculum Latinum. 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Keep per above. 10:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

===Doctors===

Rename all. 01:25, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

In the UK and much of the Commonwealth only medical practitioners with certain specialist qualifications in internal medicine are called physicians (see for example 10:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you don t mind me asking, what on earth does Fooian mean!-- 12:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

:From Foo :) Used as a place-marker meaning insert nationality here . 13:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Weak Support. I have always been under the impression that physician is a generic term for a medical doctor who does not carry out surgery - hence doctors can broadly be divided into surgeons and physicians. Some of the current WP articles support this, others imply that physician is synonymous with medical doctor. Clearly there is a divergence of usage here between American and Commonwealth English (and possibly between the usage among medical professionals and lay people such as myself). Whatever the niceties of the terminology, a 13:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all Accuracy and sensitivity to local usage are important. This should surely be less controversial than renaming the transport categories misnamed transportation in American English, and no one has objected to that. Many of the articles will use the term physician because many distinguished doctors are physicians, especially historically, but these are the main categories for all doctors. 18:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all and have them noted as exemptions to any standard on their talk pages. 19:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all per local English. 23:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Rename all as proposed for now, but I wonder if they should all be called medical doctors instead. But certainly physicians won t do. 16:37, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 01:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard: 07:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename. No argument. 23:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 01:20, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to be consistent with other categories of this kind.-- 06:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename 07:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename 19:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 23:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Suspend pending resolution of the debate on the naming format for national subject categories. Consistent with other categories is to be determined by a standard Wikipedia policy that applies equally to all national subject categories, not by what s the norm within this category tree, even if the exact opposite is the norm in that category tree over there . Comment withdrawn; it appears that the policy has been determined and it favours the proposed move here. I ll go with the rename. 00:42, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

===Abbreviated UK categories===

Rename with exception, see closing note. 01:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Here are some UK categories for expansion to United Kingdom as per standard policy.

I appreciate that there might be other naming issues with one or two of them, but I think it would be best to leave those for another time to prevent this discussion becoming overinvolved. 05:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename.-- 17:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename 19:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all. Avoid abbreviations. 23:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename all, abbreviations are unhelphul. 07:39, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment - see separate renaming request involving ) 16:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested, but yes, some need better names, too. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

*Closing note 01:18, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 01:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The phrase track and field is not used for the parent category 03:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename 19:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Mergeinto 09:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

These categories are clear duplicates, so at least one should definitely go, but per the discussion below on the use of the word modern I would recommend they both be merged into 03:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge to remove usage of the word modern. It might be appropriate to make chronological divisions of weapons categories if they are very large, but they would need to be precise. However, subdivision by type must amount to a chronological subdivision in many cases. 18:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge. IMO, division by era would work best when done independently of nationality; i.e., 23:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename. 09:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Rename to standard form: 02:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*Rename. -- Reinyday, 14:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename 19:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Delete 21:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *:Comment Do you really mean you want this deleted It hasn t been nominated for deletion, and it is hard to see why it would be. It is a standard top-tier national category. 23:41, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename. No argument. 23:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as suggested. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

=== ===

Rename to 09:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Absurd category. What encyclopedic purpose does it serve Constant edit wars, especially many with George Bush. I have trouble finding any justification for this category. What s next, Category:People who have been convicted of a crime Delete 00:27, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Erm, yes 01:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename as CalJW suggests. 01:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

*: Disagree with this renaming, unless we d rename 07:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *:: That s fine for me, too. 07:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename 10:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *:If murder is more serious, shouldn t we be even more careful I find I agree with 19:48, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Comment All the crime categories are sensitive, but at present 22:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC) *Merge to 23:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC) **I think it is well established now that we need to user much sharper categories than criminals . If we put everything in there, soon someone would slap a notice on it saying that it is too large and needed to be subdivided. 03:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename as per 01:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename per CalJW. 03:01, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *Rename, though People found guilty of drunk driving might be a better title than People convicted of drunk driving , in case someone argues that a guilty plea (like Bush s) isn t the same as a conviction (the latter implying a trial). Whatever the name, the category should be restricted to people formally adjudicated to have committed drunk driving, in a decision not reversed or vacated on appeal. 10:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC) *:Rename, and according to 15:53, 30 September 2005 (UTC) **That s certainly the case in the UK. *Delete. I agree with the nominator. It serves no purpose in an encyclopedia. -- 16:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC) **A misunderstanding of the nature of Wikipedia, surely It would look odd in a traditional encyclopaedia, but then so would much of Wikipedia s content. Remember what we re aiming for - a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge . If someone is researching the subject of drink-driving, they have every right to access a list of prominent people who have been convicted of this offence; neither you nor I have the right to prevent them from seeing such a list 00:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename as per 19:16, 1 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename. - 01:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Rename as per 16:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC) *Delete. This category is linked to names such as the singer Tiffany who has not been convicted of such an offense. CLEAN IT UP It doesn t look like anyone is willing to do the requisite intensive research necessary.