Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 16

< December 15	December 17 >

December 16

Category:NCSSSMST to category:National Consortium for Specialized Secondary Schools of Mathematics, Science and Technology schools

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 K1Bond007 22:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the least user friendly category name I have ever seen. The expansion isn't a great category name either, but as least it is clear and the policy is to avoid abbreviations. CalJW 23:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 00:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. -- Ze miguel 01:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and start lobbying to rename the National Consortium to something less unwieldy. Kusma (討論) 01:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Carina22 19:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename — agree with all previous opinions. --R6MaY89 04:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Schools in Lewisham

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 K1Bond007 22:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As some of you may know I am a frequent creator of detailed categories, and a defender of many of them, but dividing schools in London by borough is too much. All London articles are categorised by subject area and by borough, but it is not helpful to cross the two. British schools are subdivided primarily by county, with a few categories for major cities as well. London is both a city and a county, but the London boroughs are merely districts. Nor are they real communities, but simply modern bureaucratic hodge-podges made up of a small number of neighbourhoods. I should think that few Londoners could draw the boundaries of their own borough on a map with anything approaching accuracy. This category only contains one article, and it is hopefully the only such category which has been created so far. Delete CalJW 23:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There's certainly merit to your argument, however, the boroughs are the Local Education Authorities in Greater London. As this is a function that in many other parts of England is held by the shire county (or by a unitary authority or metropolitan district - predominantly in urban areas) then is this of relevance (as schools in other parts of England are, as you say, categorised by county or large city)? Also there must be 500 or so state secondary schools in London - each of which is potentially an article (I appreciate this is a hotly contested issue!) - plus a large number of independent schools. Might a geographically more detailed categorisation scheme than just Category:Schools in London be needed given that London has somewhere in the region of 1/6 of England's entire population? Valiantis 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As I have said I generally support small categories, but they are not needed here. There is nothing wrong with a category containing several hundred items if it is more user friendly than smaller categories. The London schools have already been divided by type. If they are divided by borough as well the final step will be category:Public schools in Bromley, Category:International schools in Camden and the like, with one or two articles in each. Much better to call a halt now. Boroughs be more usefully covered with lists. Finally, who cares about LEAs apart from bureaucrats? CalJW 02:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are not enough articles on Wikipedia to justify sub-categorising schools in London by area within London. I spent all of yesterday subcategorising them by type, and this way it is effective. No other London borough has this subcategory, and hence it should be removed. It no longer has any articles either. Deano 10:46, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Deano Carina22 19:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete CalJW's argument has persuaded me. Valiantis 00:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Foreign banks in Canada into Category:Banks of Canada

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 K1Bond007 22:11, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems a bit odd to have a split between foreign and domestic banks - can't find any other country where this is the case (except Hong Kong). Can't see how this helps anyone's attempts to understand the sector, surely they compete with each other regardless of ultimate nationality? The business of where a company has its shares listed is surely for "Companies traded on the....Stock Exchange"? Ian3055 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC) Oops, I have a conflict of interest on this one, work for HSBC UK Ian3055 23:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Delete for reasons given. Also, it could mean several different things: foreign incorporation, foreign ownership, foreign stock exchange listing. CalJW 23:42, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; this topic was at one point exceptionally contentious as I recall. Hopefully we'll have an easier time forming consensus with this one. siafu 23:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carina22 19:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the arguments mentioned in the previous nomination. — Insta ntnood 20:39, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Foreign banks in Hong Kong into Category:Banks of Hong Kong

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 K1Bond007 22:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As Canada above Ian3055 23:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete as above. CalJW 23:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. siafu 23:57, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Carina22 19:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Insta ntnood 21:45, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:U.S. colonial history to Category:Pre-revolutionary history of the United States

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. Martin 22:06, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Avoid abbrev, clarify colonizing vs. colonized, etc. jengod 21:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and note that it is completely normal for a country's history category to include articles and sub-categories from periods before it existed under its present name, so this can be done for the U.S. too. CalJW 23:45, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Colonial history of the United States. From perusing the category it appears that it does not cover everything implied by "pre-revolutionary history" (i.e., not a whole lot on Native Americans, etc.), and the common term used in the United States (in grammar schools, common discussion, etc.) for this period and subject is "colonial". siafu 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please, please, please let's not have six votes for six different options. That happened last time with the result that the outcome was "no consensus" even though there was a consensus to drop the abbreviation. As for using "colonial" it is very confusing for the majority of wikipedia users who are not American, as it appears to cover the history of the U.S. as a coloniser of other countries. CalJW 02:38, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry that the proposal doesn't match the best option, and that this is more complicated than simply removing the abbreviation, but I don't see that as a reason not to make a better proposal. This is also a category about American history, and should use American terminology. siafu 20:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- If the category were about the U.S. as a coloniser of other countries, it would probably be named something like "History of U.S. imperialism". But I would agree the text defining the category should be improved, because saying "The period immediately preceding the American Revolution" isn't very accurate. It should be more like "the colonial period in the United States from the late 16th century until the American Revolution". —Mike 04:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Colonial history of the United States. Neutrality^talk 18:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. Carina22 19:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. --Bkwillwm 23:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Colonial history of the United States for the reasons given by siafu. —Mike 04:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

College football teams and players 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 Rename all K1Bond007 22:15, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The categories I and others have been creating under Category:College football teams and Category:College football players have followed this pattern: (shortened name of school) (nickname) football with or without players on the end. Most of the following categories preceded this effort, and do not fit these patterns. So for consistency's sake, I'd suggest changing them all.

The Notre Dame coaches one is the only one of its kind, but there could easily be others in the future. I included "University" in the RedHawks one to avoid confusion with the Miami Hurricanes categories.--Mike Selinker 21:27, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego State teams added to list.--Mike Selinker 18:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename... although I think the Miami RedHawks should say the Miami RedHawks, since it's clear that it's not the same as the Hurricanes. Other than that, I support all the changes. Anthony 10:59, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename, as per nominator and Anthony. jareha 22:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Based on these two comments, I've removed the "University" from the RedHawks. I also added a Kentucky category to the list.--Mike Selinker 05:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your first strike-out is the same as what follows. In other words, "University" wasn't removed — was that intended? jareha 06:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed now.--Mike Selinker 16:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename (regardless of what's nominated for Miami) ×Meegs 15:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Intelligence agencies by country

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 (no rename) K1Bond007 03:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These categories need renaming, ~~to follow the naming guidelines.~~

Aecis ^praatpaal 21:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe there is any policy on the linked page which supports this. CalJW 23:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
There is a policy here: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (country-specific topics). —Mike 01:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That is the policy for articles. The policy for categories is here. It is different and more detailed, and it was agreed more recently and after more extensive debate. Many different forms are used for many different subject areas, but there is no policy for this topic. CalJW 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Longer and clumsier. The assertion that there is a policy favouring the proposed form is incorrect, so the case must be argued on its own merits. CalJW 03:16, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected on the policy. I believed that the "[subject] of [country]" concept applied to intelligence agencies as well. It seems that is not the case. I believe that it is clearer to use the full country names, instead of the adjectives. As to the issue of length and clumsiness CalJW has raised: I disagree with that. In most cases, the proposed name adds only a few letters to the category: "of Poland" instead of "Polish", "of South Africa" instead of "South African". There is only one proposed name that is considerably longer than the current name: Category:Intelligence agencies of the United States. In that case, however, the current name probably needed unabbreviating anyway, in which case the proposed name only adds "of the". I also don't see why "[subject] of [country]" is any more or any less clumsy than "[nationality] [subject]." Aecis ^praatpaal 13:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Because of cases where
Comment - I don't favor [Nation] [Subject] over [Subject] of [Nation] (or vice versa), but do note that these are currently inconsistently named. You have a number of "[Nation] intelligence agencies" and a number of "[Nationality] intelligence agencies". This is an inconsistency that needs to be corrected, and I would be opposed to any suggestion that left us using nationalities instead of nation names. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the only change required is to expand U.S. to "United States", which can be done as a speedy. "United States", "United Kingdom" and "New Zealand" are all used as adjectives quite frequently. CalJW 06:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Clean it up. The greater goal of cleaning up the entire "Intelligence Agencies" undertaking here on WP seems to be what is being considered here. CelebritySecurity 23:59, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:American football players by team to Category:National Football League players by team

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 K1Bond007 22:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this cat a while back, and now with the WikiProject NFL discussions ongoing about categorizing them to remove all players from the Category:National Football League players and putting them into team cats, I figured this one should be renamed. It only includes NFL teams anyway, and if anyone wants to categorize CFL, AFL, or USFL players by team, they can do that under the league-specific cats. Anthony 14:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The current name suggests that, for example, the Category:College football players subcategories I've been creating should also dump into there, and that doesn't really help anybody. So making it more specific makes sense.--Mike Selinker 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but don't you mean to Category:National Football League players by team? Aecis ^praatpaal 21:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- D'oh! Well, hopefully the admins know what I meant... I changed it in the title so as to avoid any future confusion. Anthony 11:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:National Football League players by team. CalJW 03:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:National Football League players by team. Mayumashu 14:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support ×Meegs 21:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Regicide

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 to Category:Regicides K1Bond007 03:31, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for men reponsible for the death of Charles I of England. 52 of them have articles which are in this category. The problem is that there are only 32 articles in the much more importnant parent Category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War. The major attribute of being on the Parliamentarian side should take clear priority, and the best way to achieve that is to delete this category. The article List of regicides of Charles I serves the purpose better. Merge into category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War and delete CalJW 07:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete or rename. If this survives the deletion process it should be named something like Category:Regicide of Charles I of England. He's not the only king to have been killed by his subjects. Durova 08:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite the description provided, the category should be used for people who killed kings/queens, not Charles I of England specifically. At least another notable regicide is included, François Ravaillac, and more can be added (the article Regicide provides a short list). The list of French parlementaries who voted to have Louis XVI guillotined should be included as well. If needed, a subcat for the regicide of Charles I of England can be created as per Durova. And it should be renamed to Category:Regicides-- Ze miguel 15:21, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename agree as per Ze miguel above. --Sachabrunel 18:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to plural per Ze miguel, and broaden the scope to e.g. Jacob Johan Anckarström, Jacques Clément, Dingane, Balthazar Gérards, Jing Ke, John Parricida, Luigi Lucheni and Gavrilo Princip. Aecis ^praatpaal 20:52, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would anyone care to say why putting large numbers of people who played a minor role in such an event (and often also did many more important things), in a category is useful? So useful that the damage done to a more important category can be ignored. It seems to me that no attempt to justify that has been made at all. The question of completeness is another matter. CalJW 23:54, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Regicides as per Ze Miguel (and use for all regicides) but remove this cat from category:Parliamentary supporters in the English Civil War to address CalJW's very reasonable concerns. Anyone want to suggest an appropriate category which this could go under? Category:Murderers may be appropriate for some assassins, but it is clearly not appropriate for those who approved the execution of Charles I or Louis XVI. Valiantis 00:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Ze Miguel and move per Valiantis in order to make this category properly international. There is a Category:Assassins that seems potentially more appropriate than its parent, Category:Murderers. siafu 00:09, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Unfortunately, Category:Assassins has a similar problem. It would be POV to assign the regicides of Charles I or Louis XVI into a cat for criminals and factually inaccurate to call them assassins (as this term implies they physically carried out the killing). Valiantis 03:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then don't include them? siafu 20:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The regicides of Charles I currently make up the majority of the category! Valiantis 01:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - Which is apparently what led to the category being nominated for deletion. siafu 02:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per nom.--Mais oui! 07:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Category:Regicides of Charles I of England or just Category:Regicides. It is useful to compare the histories, circumstances and fates of the Regicides of Charles I - those who recanted, those who were hanged as traitors, those who played an important part, those who only signed the warrant - and having a category is probably preferable to a list. David | Talk 10:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Probably". Why so, when the list gives you some of that information, but the category can't? CalJW 10:51, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I don't agree. The category links the full articles which contain far more information than any list can. The list is a different thing and it lists those who were not regicides but were connected to the decision to behead the King. David | Talk 12:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    - The list also contains the links. That is one of the main purposes of a wikipedia list. Where is the advantage in the category? CalJW 04:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Wikipedians Avenging John Seigenthaler Sr.

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: Because this was created by a vandalism-only account that has now been blocked, I am Speedy deleting this. Besides, this cat became empty after the creator's user page was tagged as an indefinitely blocked user [1] and thus it would eventually qualify under CSD #C1 anyway (so I am just speeding up the process, if you do not mind). Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Does not seem appropriate in light of the John Seigenthaler Sr. Wikipedia biography controversy. The last line added to the page in this edit is particularly seems uncivil. [2] 10qwerty 06:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete John Seigenthaler Sr. has done a good deal to boost wikipedia's traffic, so there is no need to avenge him. CalJW 07:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not an encyclopedic category. Durova 08:19, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The user who created this category is obviously very passionate about the matter. However, I think this will only invite more vandalism. If we let the issue rest, it will go away. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum. That being said, I should note for the record I have a link regarding this issue on my user page. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nonsense. siafu 00:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Actually I just added the {{cfd}} template to this page (which was missing). The creator User:Die.Mutter has recently been permablocked as a vandal, and was the only "member". I guess the vandalism was part of the "avenging". Kusma (討論) 01:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:World War II American battleships to Category:World War II battleships of the United States

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 K1Bond007 22:20, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Same situation as British battleships below. Joshbaumgartner 04:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 00:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Fictional plankton

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 K1Bond007 22:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this page is going to be used very much. I have never seen a fictional plankton apart from the one listed, therefore it shoukld be deleted. pielover87 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I assume that the user who created this category did so in good faith, and not as a joke. However, I seriously doubt that enough plankton-related characters (!) will appear on the scene in the near future to make this category viable. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 14:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending the upcoming explosion of microorganism-oriented fiction. siafu 00:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Fictional crustaceans, as Sheldon J. Plankton appears to be one. That is, he's an animal plankton (and thus likely a crustacean), and not a plant plankton or bacterial plankton. If there's an algae character created in the future, it can go under Category:Fictional plants.--Mike Selinker 01:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete. Too small. Osomec 13:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The user of this category (one fictional animal, 202.152.162.215(talk)) has been creating many unneeded unwanted categories with one or zero fictional animals. The user has been continually reverted and ultimately was blocked. The category is now empty. Hu 17:13, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Hobart suburbs to Category:Suburbs of Hobart

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 K1Bond007 22:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will bring into line with other similar categories within Category:Neighbourhoods_of_Australia. -- Longhair 03:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to standard form. CalJW 07:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - Darwinek 10:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 00:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:World War I British battleships to Category:World War I battleships of the United Kingdom

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 K1Bond007 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate, with second category being correctly named per policy. Joshbaumgartner 03:29, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 00:19, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Mais oui! 07:56, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Texas naval ships to Category:Naval ships of Texas

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 K1Bond007 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy. Joshbaumgartner 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 00:21, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:French naval ships to Category:Naval ships of France

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 K1Bond007 22:25, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy. Joshbaumgartner 02:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 00:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Dutch naval ships to Category:Naval ships of the Netherlands

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 K1Bond007 22:30, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy. Note ships from the United Provinces period have been categorized in Category:Naval ships of the United Provinces, due to the need to differentiate those from the period of the Kingdom of the Netherlands (19th Century and since). Joshbaumgartner 02:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Dutch naval ships, and subcategorize articles into a new "Naval ships of the Netherlands" category. Dutch naval ships can supercat the UP, Kingdom, etc. 132.205.44.134 02:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Such super-national categories are not maintained for other such groupings, for example, there are not Scandinavian ships for Norway, Sweden & Finland or Latin ships for South/Central American countries. Dutch is not a country and thus isn't appropriate as part of the organization by country. As stated, all articles in the category belong under Netherlands as they are all from after ~1800. Joshbaumgartner 07:57, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed, to standard method of naming. -- Ze miguel 12:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment are there any non-naval ships? Perhaps non-naval vessels, but ships? Or am I missing something here? Halibutt 12:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the differentiation is not between "naval" (water) and airships or spaceships; the differentiation is between Naval (referring to the Navy) and privately owned vessels. But I agree that the terminology can seem a bit odd. LordAmeth 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Cargo ships (e.g. container ships and oil tankers) are not naval ships. siafu 18:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As above, naval ships refer to armed ships, or those engaged in military activities. While naval ships tend to get the preponderance of articles, merchant, passenger, research, and other ships exist and are categorized under Category:Ships which are not of a military nature. Joshbaumgartner 21:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:World War II American escort aircraft carriers to Category:World War II escort aircraft carriers of the United States

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 K1Bond007 22:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy. Joshbaumgartner 01:08, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Ukrainian aircraft carriers

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 K1Bond007 22:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, duplicate of correctly named Category:Aircraft carriers of Ukraine. Joshbaumgartner 01:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No argument. siafu 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Category:Spanish aircraft carriers to Category:Aircraft carriers of Spain

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

Per policy. Joshbaumgartner 01:01, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. No argument. siafu 00:25, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.