Nominator's rationale:Rename. As one might expect, most Russians who are Orthodox Christians belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, most Greeks to the Church of Greece, etc. However, churches are emphatically not set up on ethnic criteria -- this was condemned as a heresy ("philetism") in 1872 -- but rather, jurisdictions are supposed to follow traditional and geographic boundaries. These borders most often happen to correspond with national boundaries, but not always (for instance the great majority of ethnic Romanians in Moldova continue to belong to the Russian Orthodox Church, which has held sway there since 1944, while most Slavic Macedonians are part of the Serbian Orthodox Church) The point is that we should follow jurisdictinal rather than ethnic lines, because the Church itself does so. Biruitorul (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Killed in action" is a military term, and should only be applied to those participating in military action. The new name is also consistent with the names of its subcats. jwillbur 16:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem lies in delimitation. No state is 100% free (by its nature as an organ holding repressive power), nor is any state 100% unfree (by the sheer fact that any regime, even dictatorship, needs some degree of popular legitimacy). Single-party system parties is a valid cat, cause its delimitation is based on more or less formalized one-party systems. 'Authoritarian' is highly dubious criteria. --Soman (talk) 15:19, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 (talk) 15:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Previously discussed, I'm fairly sure (ca 6 months ago) - does anyone have the link? If not this, another Norweigian network. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Category is defined as television anchors who worked in New York City, not ones who worked somewhere in New York state. Snocrates 09:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Use proper full name of city per convention. (Editors can haggle over whether or not to include ", Utah" since some SLC categories do and others don't. I would tend to include it since article is at Salt Lake City, Utah and category is Category:Salt Lake City, Utah, but the immediate parent is Category:Salt Lake City media. Perhaps a more full CFD involving all the Salt Lake City categories would be a more appropriate place to hash that one out, so here I just propose a name fix to the city.) Snocrates 09:24, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pandas actually refer to at least two different animals, red panda and giant panda. This category is mostly about famous giant pandas. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 03:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / initial oppose: Category appears to include both giant and red pandas; e.g., Babu (red panda). Are you proposing a new category for famous red pandas or just removing red pandas from the category? I agree though that just having a category for "pandas" could be problematic as the two groups are only distantly related. Snocrates 03:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose before we get into discussing panda apartheid, there are sufficiently few articles here to really generate another level of categorization. After all, we've lumped all the apes together mixing gorillas with chimps with bonobos, etc. and as for distant relation, all fish are lumped together which no doubt have more distant relationships than dumping all mammals (much less all pandas, apes, rodents, etc.) together. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment did you look at the biological classification boxes? They are not related. It would be like classifying dogs with cats, or whales with seals. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well unless I've missed an article, the concern for excluding red pandas really only pertains to exactly one article right now - Babu (red panda). Babu the Red Panda seems to be notable only because he escaped and spent four days on the loose. So I'm guessing that there aren't going to be many red pandas becoming famous anytime soon, unlike most captive giant pandas outside China - the birth of each giant panda outside China seems to be notable in and of itself because of the amount of news coverage devoted to each birth. So I would propose that we recategorise Babu (red panda) to the top level Category:Famous animals, the same place where Nereus the Walrus sits. It seems red pandas are genetically very unique, at least according to the Red Panda article. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 07:37, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support as they are biological, physically, and in human culture, distinct. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"they should all be playing captains" - what does that mean? --Dweller (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
many sports have non-playing captains, Davis Cup tennis comes to mind. But these guys are all players for Norwich City F.C. so the merger would work. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename first; upmerge second. The parents are Category:Law enforcement by country and Category:Law enforcement agencies by country; there is no equivalent "by city" parent categories for Dubai to be placed in as part of a larger scheme. Category for renaming contains only one article but I suggest it may be kept as part of large "by country" scheme of classification. Category for upmerging contains nothing but category to be renamed. Snocrates 00:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
