Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 29#Overpass and underpass-related categories

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was yikes thats a mess. no consensus.. Syrthiss 13:04, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Cut and pasted from Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 28:

----

I've added it here rather than simply renaming it myself in case there's a better new name ("acts" is misleading, as these are individuals). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

::Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 18:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Yes, rename it, but I changed the title a little to make it sound better. Robert Moore 21:07 22 April 2006 (UTC)

:* Please don't change the speedy template or my entry here. If you want to suggest an alternative name, do so in the comments. Your suggestion was "Category:American dance music artists"; that's OK, except that it should be :Category:American dance-music artists (or better, perhaps, :Category:American dance-music acts). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

::* There shouldn't be a hyphen, I'd say, as the article is at dance music. I prefer dance acts, though - It's the more common term for, well, dance acts. :p I've never heard dance musicians referred to as "dance artists", but when you hear groups such as 2 Unlimited mentioned, they're always called a dance act. Esteffect 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

:::* The hyphen is grammatically required; it distinguishes between a "dance music-act" and a "dance-music act" (compare the more obvious example: "three year-old dogs"/"three-year-old dogs"). And "dance acts" is ambiguous, as it could mean (as I originally took it to mean) dancers. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

• Is something like :Category:American pop musicians whose acts feature dance being identified here?  Regards, David Kernow 08:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

----

• :Category:American Dance Acts to :Category:American dance acts. I've added it here rather than simply renaming it myself in case there's a better new name ("acts" is misleading, as these are individuals). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 11:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
  (This has twice been deleted from the "speedy" main page, neither time being placed here; this time I've retrieved it myself. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 30 April 2006 (UTC))
• Yes, rename it, but I changed the title a little to make it sound better. Robert Moore 21:07 22 April 2006 (UTC)
• Please don't change the speedy template or my entry here. If you want to suggest an alternative name, do so in the comments. Your suggestion was "Category:American dance music artists"; that's OK, except that it should be :Category:American dance-music artists (or better, perhaps, :Category:American dance-music acts). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
• There shouldn't be a hyphen, I'd say, as the article is at dance music. I prefer dance acts, though - It's the more common term for, well, dance acts. :p I've never heard dance musicians referred to as "dance artists", but when you hear groups such as 2 Unlimited mentioned, they're always called a dance act. Esteffect 22:30, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
• The hyphen is grammatically required; it distinguishes between a "dance music-act" and a "dance-music act" (compare the more obvious example: "three year-old dogs"/"three-year-old dogs"). And "dance acts" is ambiguous, as it could mean (as I originally took it to mean) dancers. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. "Dance music artists" is pretentious and not very clear. Chicheley 18:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rethink this altogether. Seriously.
• # Note that Cat:Canadian Dance Acts was renamed to Cat:Canadian dance music artists some time ago.
• # There are a lot more categories just like this, and unpopulated, at Cat:Dance artists by country.
• # The dance music page itself currently groups every form of dance music in history together; while this is certainly valid, it means that the label of "dance music" is far too broad, I believe, for the articles in this category (which are spread across dance-pop, hip hop dance, and electronic dance). In fact, almost everything in Cat:Dance music is some form of electronic music, yet the category system does not make this evident. I've wanted to get all these categories renamed for quite a while, but I don't think just lowercasing is enough here. –Unint 04:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

note from closing admin - so we have a bunch of categories that are orphaned or nearly so, with odd naming, and questionable criteria (per delete votes). however from the votes we have several for rename and keep. so... I'm deleting these mostly empty cats, and when / if people want to populate properly named categories feel free to create them and populate them. Be aware that they may end up being deleted anyhow based on the deletion arguments presented here (and in the past) --Syrthiss 13:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:French-British people - Only 1 article. (Was previously tagged as CFR but not listed on this page so I have taken the liberty of re-tagging as CFD).
• :Category:German-British people - Almost all the articles are members of the British Royal Family whose Germanness is much exaggerated.
• :Category:American British people - Only 1 article
• :Category:Italian-British people - Cat is defined as "People of the United Kingdom native to Italy, or with Italian ancestory." People of the UK native to Italy?? If they are native to Italy in what way are they "of the United Kingdom"? Resident? Dual nationality? Born in Italy, naturalised in the UK? Who knows?
• :Category:Polish-British people - Only 1 article
• :Category:Spanish-British people - Only 1 article
• :Category:South African British people
• :Category:Swedish British people - Empty cat.
• :Category:Canadian British people - Cat has no articles, only 1 subcat, the equally inappropriate :Category:Canadian Northern Irish people which I am listing below. In addition, this cat was created yesterday and is effectively a recreation of :Category:Canadian Britons which was deleted by consensus for the reasons I have outlined above less than a fortnight ago. (See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 10#Category:Canadian Britons.
• :Category:Canadian Northern Irish people - Only 1 article
• :Category:Jewish-British people
• None of the cats named above reflect everyday British usage. They appear to be neologisms on the model of Hyphenated American ethnicities. As the terms are very seldom used in UK parlance it is unclear what they are supposed to mean. Do they mean British people of Fooian descent, Fooian citizens resident in the UK, people with dual Fooian and British nationality etc ? As no-one can define them clearly they are unsuitable as categories. None of these terms are used by official bodies in the UK. With the exception of "Italian-British people" all of these were created in the last couple of weeks, some only yesterday. To be nipped in the bud! Valiantis 23:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. CalJW 00:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. Driller thriller 00:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all to be renamed. they are no more and no less as clearly defined as the so-called hyphenated American pages (ie. american people of fooian ethnic/national descent). the number of pages populating them in irrelevant. what this nomination boils down to is that they terms and/or concepts are without common usage in the UK, a valid point. however, an equally valid one is how (on earth) you can retain pages for Asian-British, British Chinese, British of Irish descent, indeed the supra-cat page itself and not these?? a renaming should likely be "British people of fooian descent", which to be more in line with British language - certainly the hyphen should go Mayumashu 01:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:*The Asian British and British Chinese cats can reasonably be kept as these terms both have general currency in the UK, not least in the census and in other government-published statistics [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp]. Personally, I would rather not have a "British of Irish descent" cat as it is tremendously vague but I chose not to nominate it here as it replaced a cat called "Irish-British people" (or similar) which was discussed here a good few months ago. I voted to delete that cat, but a compromise was negotiated to rename to the current name and I voted to accept the rename rather than have a no consensus vote which would leave the neologistic name in place. I felt it would be bad faith for me now to seek a delete. If anyone else wants to nominate this cat, however, I would be minded to delete! (It is worth noting that "White Irish" is an option on the census, but it might reasonably be argued that that refers to those people in Northern Ireland who consider themselves Irish rather than "ethnically" British and to the many Irish citizens resident in the UK). BTW, many of the American "ethnicity" cats are IMO also a nonsense but they are a nonsense that many Americans (and others) choose to believe in and define themselves by - there are numerous organisations that explicitly or implicitly work for the interests of individual "hyphenated American" groups. Britons generally don't label themselves in this way. Valiantis 22:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

::*Just to answer your other point, I stated the number of pages populating the cats as evidence that there is no "public demand" for such cats. This is fairly common practice on

this page as far as I can see. Valiantis 23:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:::i agree that North Americans can go too far at times with the ethnicity thing and don t deny the clarity of the case you and other British users have made for not having these cats for British bios. i however hate to see inconsistently where some countries have these kinds and others don t and that they can t be created by users with in interest in human migration (such as myself) because users without an interest in them wish not to have them. they provide rather trivial info i do think (too) and perhaps are too trivial to be in an encyclopedia (a case of where to draw the line, as with many things). but as you point out, they are hard to do away with entirely and again i just don t like to have them in place on the one hand but not entirely/thoroughly. Mayumashu 14:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete all per nom. Bhoeble 17:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all per nom. --Smerus 18:20, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all. We have Category:Jewish-British people, and hundreds of categories of Americans by ethnic origin. Why not British people? Donnog 20:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Well "Jewish-British people" is at best misnamed (it should be "British Jews" as in Board of Deputies of British Jews). I would rather do without it, but I know what the result of suggesting it be deleted would be. I'm minded to list it for a rename to something that reflects British usage (i.e. :Category:British Jews), but I wanted to do that quite separately from the deletions. As to "Why not British people?" I think I have stated the reasons fairly clearly. American practice is not a guide to British practice. Valiantis 14:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep all, populate, and to be renamed. — Instantnood 17:44, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was per my talk page, rename to Category:Categories named after people. Syrthiss 13:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Note from closing admin - Uhh, I'm sorry guys. I really tried to follow all the discussion to come to a logical decision for ~30 minutes, but I've only had one cup of tea this morning. It looks like some of you were going to go off somewhere and discuss this more. If you weren't, and can create a coherent thread that shows a consensus for one of the names I'm willing to reopen this and go to town. --Syrthiss 13:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

This was renamed not too long ago (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 18) but I was persuaded at the time by an argument that on closer examination isn't true. The argument was that cat:Categories by person was a reasonable name because it fit in with the other members of :Category:Categories by topic. However, if you look closely at other subcategories of that category you'll find that all of them that are labelled cat:Category by foo have members of the form cat:x by foo. So :Category:Categories by city is populated with subcategories like :Category:Churches by city and :Category:Culture by city. By this convention then a category called :Category:Categories by person should be populated with subcategories of the form cat:x by person. So it is clear to me that this category is no way no how in the class of Category by foo categories and its name needs to be rethunk. JeffW 22:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Much clearer. CalJW 00:05, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't have a problem with this. Do you buy the shorter :category:People with categories?--Mike Selinker 03:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• It doesn't capture the point that the category that the people have is their own, but maybe I'm being too pendantic? --JeffW 04:16, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• I think this is going to have to be typed a lot (the category's currently far from fully populated), so brevity is good here.-Mike Selinker 14:11, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree that brevity is good. I see that it is a subcategory of :Category:Categories by topic, so I suggest something along the lines of "Topical FOO", as below. Carcharoth 09:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• A good portion of my argument above is that this category doesn't belong in :Category:Categories by topic so it doesn't need to abide by the naming conventions there. --JeffW 16:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom or to :Category:Topical people or something brief. Carcharoth 09:16, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Interesting suggestion, but I don't think that accomplishes the goal of the category, which is a housekeeping function. (It says, "I am a category," not "I am worthy of a topic.")--Mike Selinker 15:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Topical people makes me think contemporary people. Since it's a category for categories, not for people, how about {{cat|Person categories}}? Person also narrows it down to individuals rather than ethnicities (peoples). SeventyThree^(Talk) 15:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind - see below. SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• I can live with Person categories. --JeffW 16:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, let's do that. Jeff, I suggest changing the nomination to :category:Person categories. I support that change.--Mike Selinker 19:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Actually, I should have been clearer. I withdraw my suggestion concerning "Topical people" and now wish to make the more general point that it seems possible (though rare) to have a category grouping articles broadly linked by a person and his influence, and a category grouping articles more narrowly linked as being about a person and his life and times. I would call the former the "topic" category, and the latter the "person" category. The distinction would be: is the article/category about the person, or about the broader topic area that was started by and branches out from that person? A good example is literary figures. There should probably be a William Shakespeare category in this "Categories by person" category - but it is possible to draw a distinction between articles about the man and his works (the 'person' category), and articles about subjects more distantly related to Shakespeare, but that could still be grouped under an umbrella category (more like a portal) that brings together widely different areas and articles that have Shakespeare in common. Another example is the categories in the George W. Bush category - these could easily be subgrouped by different subject areas, or assigned to similar, but slightly different categories, that are broader than just Bush himself. Another way to think of this is to think of the name category being for stuff about a person's life and times, and the topic category being for stuff about the person's legacy, or continuing influence. Like a brand of fantasy, a school of literature or politics, and so forth. A final example (showing my bias in the matter), and the one that got me thinking about this, is the :Category:Tolkien and :Category:J. R. R. Tolkien distinction that I recently set up.
• Do other people see this distinction between "people" and "topics" as well, and consider it useful, or am I splitting hairs here? Carcharoth 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• I see the difference, but at this stage, this part of the category infrastructure is so new that I think it'd be confusing to do what you're suggesting. In the future, though, it might make a lot of sense.--Mike Selinker 19:04, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. :category:Topical people would be very unclear. Hawkestone 18:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Notwithstanding the above, English grammar would indicate that "Person categories" suggests "Categories that are person" or perhaps "...of person"; either way, without knowledge of the above I don't think folk coming across this name will readily understand what is intended, perhaps not even if they decided to visit the category. Inclined to oppose, but at present have no alternative to suggest. Regards, David Kernow 09:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Some more suggestions for names for this category: Portal-like categories concerning people, Categories about people, People as categories, or Categories named after people. I prefer the last one. Carcharoth 17:18, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

:* I too think that last suggestion might fit the bill, Carcharoth – nice one. Hopefully folk above will support or indicate drawbacks. In the meantime, however:

• If renamed, support :Category:Categories named after people per Carcharoth. David Kernow 18:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, I'm fine with either that or :category:Person categories.--Mike Selinker 04:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Several further points. Naming the category Categories named after people would allow a logical extension to subcategories, such as Categories named after politicians, Categories named after authors, Categories named after pop singers - to name three common 'professions' that I see there. On the other hand, this might encourage incorrect categorisation, such as the current placing of this category under :Category:People. Looking at the subcategories, you can see that this ends up with articles like Tonight's The Night (2003 musical) and Miss Beazley (dog) being three levels below :Category:People, which makes an absolute nonsense of the category system. In my opinion, the only category that :Category:Categories by person should be in is :Category:Categories by topic, as these people are clearly the topic of their category, or even just :Category:Categories. And I'll reiterate another point here that I've raised elsewhere: these broad, 'umbrella', categories are clearly functioning like portals, associating articles with loose, tenuous, or broad connections to a subject area, rather than tightly focussed categories that are easier to define and, crucially, easier to assign parent categories to. Because these categories are so broad, no one parent category will apply to all the articles in, say, :Category:George W. Bush, but rather each article or category needs to be assigned its own parent category. ie. the 'parent' categorisation cannot be inclusive, but needs to happen a level lower down, on a case-by-case basis. Carcharoth 09:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• Before my head explodes, perhaps this situation's saving grace might be that :Category:Categories named after people would (should) only contain other categories... otherwise, I don't know... destroy and replace with portal (within Portal:People?) ... Arrg, David Kernow 10:21, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• As I argued above, I strongly disagree that this category belongs under :Category:Categories by topic. Otherwise, :Category:Categories named after people is ok with me too. --JeffW 16:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• The example you gave (:Category:Categories by city) along with :Category:Categories by country seem to fit better under :Category:Categories by region (which they are also under). While they fit the naming convention of :Category:Categories by topic, they don't seem to fit the meaning. I wouldn't say that geographical location is a topic, whereas the eponymous categories do seem to be categories organised around a topic (and a portal is also, of course, a grouping of articles around a topic). I'm tempted to create :Category:Categories by geographical location, but the annoying thing about categories is having to wait a while before reorganising, otherwise people don't see what you are talking about. But maybe I'll do this anyway. Carcharoth 19:56, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• The only sense I can make of "Category by topic" is that it is meant to contain categories with names of the form Category by . In other words topic is just a filler word. And as I demostrated above categories with the name "Category by foo" contain categories with names of the form by foo. If you are saying that "Categories by topic" means "categories that are about a topic" then every category should fit in there because categories are all about grouping pages by some topic or other. --JeffW 21:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
• I agree with your assessment of "Categories by topic" - and I'll move that "...by geographical location" back in there. But the name for "Categories by topic" is very misleading. The correct name eludes me, but the correct way to phrase "Categories by something" would seem to be "Categories". Looking at the other top-level entries (Lists, Portals, Fundamental), I suspect that renaming :Category:Categories to :Category:Category and having the former be a subcategory of the latter (on the same level as Lists and Portals) might work. But then again, it might not. The only other thing I can think of is :Category:Categories by categories, which is even more confusing! Carcharoth 07:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Would it be acceptable for :Category:Categories by topic to be named :Category:Categories by...? I would suspect not. Carcharoth 11:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Let's continue this conversation at Category talk:Categories by topic. --JeffW 21:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• Good idea! Will the comments in this debate also be copied to the (not yet existing) talk page for :Category:Categories by person? I'm particularly interested to see whether people can think of an easy way to find other categories named after people. I did find around 40 (as mentioned elsewhere), but it is not that easy to find them, and there are doubtless lots more. Some of these eponymous categories are underpopulated or empty, and some might work better as "See also" lists in the articles concerned (though categorising them is also tempting), especially for the larger groups. There are also two fictional character categories that I added :Category:Harry Potter and :Category:James Bond - though I'm not certain if that was the intended purpose of the category. Carcharoth 07:48, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
• Move to :Category:Categories named after people. As for the parents of this cat, that can probably be left to the talk page (or Wikipedia talk:Categorization) after the move . SeventyThree^(Talk) 02:10, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum to this debate, I've been searching Wikipedia for more categories named after people. Can anyone think of an easy way to do this? I can only think of getting a list of all articles about people - if this exists - and tweaking it to show ":Category:

" and hence display category red- or blue-links for each article.

My search has so far discovered nearly 40 more eponymous categories (varyingly populated), bringing the total close to 100. That should give an idea of how widespread the practice is, and how much use of this kind of category is going to spread in the future. I still think they are portals, not categories, and that nearly all these eponymous categories are incorrectly categorised as if they were the main article, rather than a category of articles relating to the subject of the main article. Having said that, the way they are categorised at the moment makes them easier to find, so I'm being hoist on my own petard here! Categorising them "incorrectly" messes up the category relationships, but makes the categories easy to find! Carcharoth 14:42, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

• Rename but to :Category:personal categories. Better English is worth two letters. Septentrionalis 18:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
• It may be better English, but I don't think it means the same thing. --JeffW 19:04, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete These "hyphenated" nationality cats are an Americanism; it is not common in the UK to refer to people in this way. Certainly the term has no official governmental/statistical usage. The term is effectively a neologism and has no clear definition (Is it people born in the Czech Republic who now live in Britain, is it British people who have a Czech parent, etc ?). This cat has only one article Dan Luger who is also in the ridiculously named :Category:Croatian-Englishes. Valiantis 22:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom Driller thriller 22:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom CalJW 00:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to :Category:British people of Czech descent Mayumashu 01:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete There is no need to import this American perpetuation of ethnic divisions to the UK. Bhoeble 17:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--Smerus 08:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete POV attack category. Really no different than having :Category:Racists. Postdlf 20:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep Racists discriminate on the basis of race. Nativists discriminate on the basis of whether a culture is foreign, etc. Yes, it is different. It is a relevant and pertinent category. Why not delete Buchanan's "LGBT rights opposition" cat? Why not delete "pro-choice" or "pro-life" cats? If the concern is related to some of the people included denying their nativists sentiments, then would should also delete serial killers cats, etc. I think the POV problem comes from whomever wants to censor an article, not from someone merely posting what is known through various media outlets.Wigwam88 07:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but prune. I'm not convinced that it is "no different than having :Category:Racists", however, I was originally minded to delete. However, looking at Millard Fillmore who was the presidential candidate for the Know-nothing movement which is described in its article as nativist, a description which is backed up with quotes from historians, its clear that there was historically a nativist movement in the US which was happy to acknowlege its nativism. Whether this cat should be used for figures from the 20th or 21st Century is a separate issue. Valiantis 21:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, at a minimum, it should be pruned to omit those who have never self-identified by the label "nativist." However, nothing productive is gained by having this category even for the historical figures, when their articles already describe their political philosophies. Why not instead make a category for those associated with the Know-nothing Party? That's a simple and objective fact to state, which wouldn't invite the same POV inclusion problems as this category. Postdlf 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete (vote changed). Postdlf's suggestion is a better way of working. Valiantis 00:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdlf. -- DS1953 ^talk 01:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdlf. OCNative 12:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdlf. Carlossuarez46 19:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdlf. --BaronLarf 21:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdif, plus user is using category to attack 21st century political figures he doesn't like. -- FRCP11 00:32, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdif 216.141.226.190 01:56, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Postdif. Also, entries would be subject to too much contention (some agree, others disagree) Antares33712 16:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• :Category:Highway overpasses and underpasses
• :Category:Interstate 75 overpasses and underpasses
• :Category:Interstate 75 interchanges
• :Category:Highway interchanges

Note, I added the umbrella notice before realizing that the description did not quite fit for interchanges, but it is part of the same pattern of edits. While there is a chance there there may genuinely be some overpasses and underpasses (and interchanges) of encyclopedic interest, I think the present efforts at categorization are misguided. Based on the initial articles added, does not actually categorize articles about overpasses, underpasses or interchanges--but rather articles about the highways on which such things occur.

• Delete all. older ≠ wiser 19:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Valiantis 00:12, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Choalbaton 23:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - this category contained only the names of 2 recipients, and there already exists :Category:National Medal of Science recipients. Since this is a non-controversial change, I already moved the individuals in the Medal cat to the recipients cat. Blainster 18:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 01:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete - this category contained only the names of recipients, and there already exists :Category:National Medal of Technology recipients. Since this is a non-controversial change, I already moved the individuals in the Medal cat to the recipients cat. Blainster 18:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 01:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not a category. It mixes completely unrelated things in an absolutely non-informative manner. The very expression "Whistle register singers" is totally meaningless from the standpoint of Classical singing. Tantris 17:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::Comment --- is that the only valid genre of music in which to base our categories? I hope not. The cat was named whistle register singers as opposed to say coloratura to be inclusive of the many soul, rock (and yes, pop) artists who make careers singing the high notes we love and respect. Antares33712 18:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep - it isn't just about classical singing. Its about singers who can sing at or above E6. The ability is rather rare and singers who tend to make careers out of this ability are notable for it. I admit the list needs cleanup and what-not but fundamentality, singers who can pitch notes that high are usually notable in that regard. Antares33712 18:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Antares33712. Postdlf 21:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - it's meaningless and irrelevant. Drmagic 21:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - we have other categories like soprano, alto and especially mezzo-soprano, a vocal fach that itself is somewhat contentious. Shall we delete them all too? 216.141.226.190 01:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - This is a good category. The whistle register is a commonly known term and known as a hard technique to use. Head and Falsetto registers don't commonly reach E6 and the whistle voice is a rare register. Myke 03:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - but change introductory paragraph slightly to better suit the category. Highconclave 08:30, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - We have categories with only three artciles in them. We also have categories which are way too broad and vague. Let's clean all of those up. 24.148.74.156 14:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. So far as I'm aware, "whistle register" singing is a recognised phenomenon with this recognised name, so I'd say it qualifies as a viable category regardless of how many members it may or may not have. Regards, David Kernow 16:18, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge per all knowing and all around wonderful nom. Syrthiss 13:37, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Category had been marked for deletion as a subcat on April 19th's CFD, but rather than these images being tossed to the wayside I think they should prolly be upmerged into Wikipedia meetups. Syrthiss 15:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. Syrthiss 15:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism meco 12:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. David Kernow 12:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Deizio 14:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedied. Syrthiss 15:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism meco 12:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. David Kernow 12:51, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Deizio 14:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Syrthiss 13:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge wiki's article literary criticism's description of what a "literary critic" is and that the phrase is far more common that "literary academic" warrants this merger Mayumashu 11:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom. Bhoeble 16:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already merged apparently. Syrthiss 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge a mass renaming of alumni cat pages having full names apparently missed this one. Mayumashu 10:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge per nom Colonel Tom 12:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, per nom. Deizio 14:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, per nom. Bhoeble 16:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the category be renamed to Daniel Quinn to be consistent with other categories in :Category:Categories by person. Tim! 10:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• support as per nom Mayumashu 10:31, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support per nom, naming conventions Colonel Tom 12:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename (speedy?) per nom. David Kernow 12:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename (yes, speedy?) per convention. Deizio 14:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• rename per nom. Sumahoy 17:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename as all other Northern Irish cat pages were recently Mayumashu 08:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Was wrongly listed at AfD: There is one short article in this category which, if expanded, would sum up penitentials without the need for superfluous categorisation. Since its creation eight months ago nothing has been added, and it is likely nothing will be. Eivind^t@c 06:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete I was the original nominator. Fishhead64 07:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Eivind. Colonel Tom 12:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 13:41, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename both. there are too few to population these pages to limit them to those who reside in England and not the U.K. as a whole Mayumashu 06:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete both for reasons I listed at Categories for deletion#Category:Brazilian-Englishes to Category:Brazilian-English people. Valiantis 21:50, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both as per Valiantis CalJW 00:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:comment alternative renaming now nominated in light of User:Valiantis's point made on the ambiguity of the kind of naming original proposed Mayumashu 01:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

::This is still ambiguous. How many generations back does the descent remain relevant. Does one Brazilian great-grandmother count, or do both the British person's parents have to have been Brazilian or what?Valiantis 22:15, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:::Well without definition, any number would count of course and even this would still provide a quite short list for British with Brazilian or Croat(ian) roots. stating on the cat page that 1/4 or better ethnicity qualifies would provide an arbitrary definition that suffices on a number of category pages (including many like American ones) and of course with Irish descent, a line does need to be drawn given the number of people with some ancestry. i d say the other point you have raised (above) that the terms lack currency in the U.K. is the only solid one to make the case against on. i appreciate at any rate the discussion that s come up on the matter and will add a note to the British people by ethnic or national origin page telling of how only a few categories of potential categories are given currency in the U.K. so users don t wonder why the list of sub-cats is so short Mayumashu 14:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete There is no need to import this American perpetuation of ethnic divisions to the UK. Bhoeble 17:04, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bhoeble. Driller thriller 13:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bhoeble; especially as the UK has its own internal ethnic divisions to work out. Carlossuarez46 19:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename. Despite the prevalence of the name in common usage (it gets 40 times a yahoo search hits) and that this is often the basis used here for naming, Britons of Chinese descent are British people first, of Chinese descent and the name should reflect this. Mayumashu 06:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment, came across something like this before elsewhere with "British Asian", which was noted there as being the opposite way round but with a similar meaning to "African-American". Also, some would probably argue that it should be "Sino-British", or "Anglo-Chinese" too. Tricky... Without clear evidence that one is widely preferred to or considered more correct than the other it might not be worth changing. Deizio 15:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose "Chinese-British" is an unambiguous Americanism. See the [http://www.britishchinese.org.uk/ British Chinese society website] Bhoeble 16:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Bhoeble. This was the subject of a previous vote here. "Chinese" is recognised as a ethnicity in the United Kingdom census and other government statistics, hence it seems reasonable to allow it as its meaning is reasonably clear and it is clearly not a neologism. (Or as I previously commented: - The UK census allows people to group themselves into the following ethnic groups and subgroups [http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/commentaries/ethnicity.asp]: White (subgroups = White British; White Irish; White Other); Mixed (subgroups = White and Black Caribbean; White and Black African; White and Asian; Mixed Other); Asian or Asian British (subgroups = Indian; Pakistani; Bangladeshi; Asian Other); Black or Black British (Caribbean; African; Black Other); Chinese or Other ethnic group (subgroups = Chinese; Other). The 'Other' subgroups allow the respondent to write in a specific ethnic group. (NB in British official usage Asian refers to people from the Indian sub-continent. People from East Asia are Chinese or Other). As long as a person continues to identify themselves as ethnically Chinese they remain Chinese as an ethnicity rather than a nationality. If they have British citizenship, they are of course British by nationality. Hence British Chinese). Valiantis 21:58, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Bhoeble. Driller thriller 22:32, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose Let the Americans be consistent with us if they want. Personally I would prefer to delete every single ethnic category, but that is a lost cause. CalJW 00:09, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

nomination withdrawn to avoid piling on and getting hurt! Mayumashu 01:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Standard naming convention for sub-categories of :Category:Battles by war. Kirill Lokshin 06:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 07:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom, convention. Colonel Tom 12:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 17:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Standard naming convention for sub-categories of :Category:Battles by war. Kirill Lokshin 06:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 07:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom, convention. Colonel Tom 12:23, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:42, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Rename since "derivates" (not "derivatives") is unnecessarily technical and there is no general category for cellulose. I decided to make the nomination after seeing Cotton in the category when both the cotton and cellulose articles say that cotton is nearly pure cellulose, not a "derivate". Mike Dillon 05:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rename good shout from MikeD. Deizio 15:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 17:09, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 13:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

No vote As below, this is to confirm that the current naming is indeed "correct" (as many cat pages including :Category:British academics have been named using "academics" and not "scholars") and not a "poor translation". if it is British English to prefer "scholar" when including modern academics then i ll support a rename (i m not British). Mayumashu 03:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose Merge into :category:Swedish writers instead. All scholars write, but they don't all hold an academic post. Bhoeble 17:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

::the list as it stands only contains academics - the nomination is to shift the list as a whole to avoid having to hand-do each page to a more accurate cat page while creating an empty cat page for Swedish scholars that will later need to be deleted. apologies for not explaining this and perhaps i owe an apology too for not just doing the work by-hand Mayumashu 15:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 13:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge or reverse merge. these should be merged and i suspect this is the right way. Irish, Scots, Welsh seem generally to prefer scholar to academic from what i ve read and i don t know about English (and therefore if this is matter of British English versus North American). what i do know is that the list includes modern academics and therefore belongs linked to :Category:Academics by nationality Mayumashu 02:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong oppose Have a look at the articles and you will see that both options are inappropriate. I am thinking of nominating all the "scholars" categories for merging, but into the writers categories, not the academics categories. The idea that all scholars are academics is a contemporary campus-centric view, and it is quite incorrect. Bhoeble 16:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment What have you read that suggests Irish, Scots and Welsh prefer "scholars"? If we're talking about people who work in higher education, then the term "academic" seems to be standard British and Hibernian English. "Scholar" suggests either a general (and possibly rather arch) term for a learned person or a person who wrote scholarly works back in the days before learning was institutionalised. Valiantis 00:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

::a user's comments and that these cat pages where named with "scholar" Mayumashu 15:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 02:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge as it is apparently common to refer to modern academics as scholars in Ireland (and Scotland and Wales). i ve included an explanation on the page explaining this, made the link to :Category:Academics by nationality, and removed the direct link to :Category:Scholars which collects Cat:Academics, other modern yet non-Academic scholars (mostly theologians), and classical / pre-modern academia scholars Mayumashu 02:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:Oppose Can you show a source for this assertion? I have no first hand experience of Irish academia but I did work in a Welsh university and I can assure you no one used the term "scholar" to refer to the academic staff. The word "academics" seems to be used regularly on the [http://www.tcd.ie/info/academics/ Information for Academics page] of Trinity College Dublin, in [http://www.ucd.ie/research/news/2006/mar/news_032906_ria_honours.htm this new story] on the University College Dublin website, in [http://www.dcu.ie/news/2006/jan/s0106j.shtml this news article] on the Dublin City University website, on the [http://www.ucc.ie/en/AcademicsandStaff/ Academics and Staff homepage] of the University College Cork website, and the [http://www.nuigalway.ie/staff/ Academics and Staff homepage] of the National University of Ireland, Galway website. The NUI Galway and UCC websites, when searched for the word "scholars" produce respectively a nil response and links to the word "scholarship" (i.e. money for students). Searching the DCU and UCD sites does produce hits on the word "scholars" so it is clear that it is sometimes used in at least some Irish universities, but not exclusively instead of academics and not in all universities. At Trinity College "Scholars" are a particular type of student see [http://www.tcd.ie/scholars/Scholar/infoScholars.php here] or WP's own article. I therefore see nothing to be gained and much to be lost from merging these two cats as you propose. Valiantis 00:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

::as it is :Category:Irish scholars lists mainly those that the sites you checked (much appreciated too) would name academics. perhaps i should withdraw the nomination and do a big purge Mayumashu 01:57, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

:::It looks to me like someone has used the word "scholar" in a sense that is not unreasonable (i.e. "learned person") but which is contrary to general WP practice for the Irish cat and then this has been extrapolated to Scotland and thence to Wales. "Academics" is certainly not a foreign usage in Ireland, Wales and Scotland, so I suspect that the rename should be to "Academics" for all three cats (presuming that there should even be separate cats for Wales and Scotland....). Valiantis 22:29, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

::::okay. i ll withdraw this nomination and nominate all three to go from scholar to academic. again the checking up you ve done is appreciated Mayumashu 15:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

nomination withdrawn in light of info uncovered by User:Valiantis. Mayumashu 00:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 13:46, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The "Economy of" articles are categorised here rather than the country articles, so the existing name is misleading. The abbreviation should also go. Rename CalJW 00:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC).

• Oppose and suggest naming :Category:WTO member economies. there s no need to have sub-cat names using initialisms spelled-out - it takes up space unnecessarily. the rule should be to name supra-cat pages the same as their corresponding article page and sub-cat pages with acronyms as long as the acronym has but one common meaning (therefore not ATP for instance). then, at the head of each page using an acronym, the spelling-out of the name should be put Mayumashu 02:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support There is no need not to have them spelled out. The main aim should be clarity. Bhoeble 16:17, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Sumahoy 17:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. I think the server can handle the increased load from spelling them out... —Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 16:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 18:06, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Economies of World Trade Organization members; the WTO has member states, not member economies. In terms of international relations, I'm not sure how an economy can be a member of anything. -choster 23:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: WTO has members, not member state. — Instantnood 17:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.