Nominator's rationale: As far as I know we don't categorize buildings in general as "recycled" since most buildings are used for many things during their existance. We don't even have categories for Brownfield land or Urban renewal. Kevlar67 (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have categories for Dutch, English and Polish Popes, of which there were precisely one of each. We also have categories for Portuguese and some other nationality Popes of which there are only two. Most of the subcategories of Category:Non-Italian popes are very small and have little prospect of being anything else, with the typical papal reign being of the order of decades. Guy (Help!) 12:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - In general I share your unhappiness about extremely small sub-categories. But I have a question: why delete Dutch, but not English and Polish? Were they supposed to be tagged too? Cgingold (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - However pointless these categories may seem from the Category:Popes side, they seem at least potentially useful from the English, Dutch, etc. side. See, e.g., Category:English clergy. Which of the non-Italian categories are envisioned to be kept? The French who seem to have quite a number of popes? --Lquilter (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Main article, which is named Gravitation and the category name should match. "Gravity" redirects to the Gravitation article and having the main article and category names not match will only contribute to reader confusion. The correct category hierarchy would be: "Gravitation", which includes "Category:Theories of gravitation", which then includes, if needed, a very narrow category named "Gravity" or perhaps "Newton's theory of gravity".--Truthnlove (talk) 09:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename the Canadian-English variant "defencemen" over the redirect to the American-English variant "defensemen," since the category is about Americans. Flibirigit (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've always thought the rationale for replacing the trusty old Category:American/Canadian ice hockey players with position based categories was faulty. Numerous players have played several different positions throughout their careers. --72.25.35.208 (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename the Canadian-English variant "centres" over the redirect to the American-English variant "centers," since the category is about Americans. Flibirigit (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Parent cat uses the non-American variant of the category, and cats should be consistent. Since the game itself is most closely associated with Canada having been invented there and since the category itself is not referring to a singular person but the position itself it should remain consistent with the parent cat and that of the article itself Centre (ice hockey). There is no reason to make a exception for a single countries variation from the norm. -Djsasso (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would support the rename, but when I started reading this discussion I thought that the category was for places in the United States where ice hockey is played. It wasn't until I reached the middle of the second comment that I discovered it was about players, not places. I think we should try to come up with a better name for the whole lot of them. Cgingold (talk) 04:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would not oppose that move, but, that discussion would be much larger than just athletes. My opinion is that players all would belong to a root category of one or more nationalities (American people; Finnish people; etc), so, naming the categories for the individual similarly would not constitute a problem. Teams, on the other hand, aren't American, Swedish, etc, and, the parent category that they most likely fall under is some form of "sport in country". To rename players, you would have to rename all nationality-based categories. Neier (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
