Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 26

< September 25	September 27 >

September 26

Navaho cats

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 both. ∞Who ?¿? 20:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Navaho and Category:Navaho mythology

The former is an unnecessary duplicate of Category:Navajo tribe; the latter was the only thing contained in the former, and the only article there (Navaho mythology) I have moved to Category:Navajo tribe. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 21:13, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ∞Who ?¿? 23:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 22:44, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bhoeble 21:14, 28 September 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:Public schools in Scotland

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. ∞Who ?¿? 19:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is empty, is "blanked" (no supercats), and is duplicative of Category:Private schools in Scotland, except with less generally accurate/inclusive/commonly applied terminology. Was cfd-nommed before, but when still populated. Alai 20:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete CalJW 02:59, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It may seem pointless, but "Public Schools" is an older term for the highly exclusive private schools of the UK, e.g. Eton or Harrow. However, it could be confusing for overseas users. I am adding a comment to this effect on the category page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil alias Harry (talk • contribs) 05:02, 27 September 2005
- Comment I thought that was only true in England and Wales, but that in Scotland "public school" meant the same thing as everywhere else (government-funded school anyone can go to). But I could easily be mistaken on that. --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 07:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. user:Angr is right. Public schools in Scotland are completely different to Public schools in England - same term, different meaning. Grutness...wha? 07:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous Cfd unresolved, see Category_talk:Public_schools_in_Scotland for any info. ∞Who ?¿? 07:19, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Public school" in Scotland means the same as it does in the US, Australia etc: state-funded school. The correct term in Scotland is "Private School" (or more formally "Independent School"). If you can stand it, see the interminable debate on-going at Talk:Public school (UK) which many people want re-named (again) as Public school (England).--Mais oui! 07:38, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the context of Scotland, an independent school that follows the England-and-Wales education system is often called a "Public School". Note the capitalisation. "Public school" and "Public School" mean different things in Scotland; in England and Wales, the former means nothing, but is often mis-used to mean the latter. All in all, it's a bit of a mess. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bhoeble 23:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as proposed. Carina22 16:42, 2 October 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:Marriage, unions and partnerships 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 change). ∞Who ?¿? 19:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category duplicates several categories such as Category:Same-sex marriage, Category:Marriage and Category:LGBT civil rights. Delete --File:Ottawa flag.png Spinboy 17:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ overcategorization. Don't see the need to cat biographies in this way. ∞Who ?¿? 18:54, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category has nothing to do with biographies! rossb 04:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My appologies, I did a quick glance and considered the noms suggestion. I abstain from this discussion. ∞Who ?¿? 22:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Who. siafu 22:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. a useful category, which is only partly duplicated by the other categories mentioned. If anything, I'd prefer to have Category:Same-sex marriage deleted in favour of this one. rossb 04:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This category does not duplicate any other category. It gives access to articles sorted by country and is part of the Categories by country superstructure. For example, it allows you to see that there are articles on Same-sex marriage in Australia and on Same-sex unions in Australia. In addition, Marriage in Canada does not fit into Category:Same-sex marriage nor Category:LGBT civil rights as mentioned by the nominator. The category contains 52 articles, which is a substantial enough number for having a subcategory. -- Reinyday, 14:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Someone just replaced the country list in Template:Civil union with a link to here, which I think works better than the previous ungainly list. --Jfruh 15:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — Insta ntnood 18:04, 4 October 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. states to Category:States 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. ∞Who ?¿? 19:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling out abbreviation. SEWilco 16:43, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Always. However, why does this even need a category? I mean, they are states of the United States — we don't need a category to tell us that. And the list (which I presume exists) is plenty adequate, surely? Delete the cat, if we find consensus for it.-Splash^talk 03:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think the category keeps the standard category Category:Subdivisions of the United States from being crowded, just as the "Towns of..." subcategory reduces clutter. The proposed new name also follows the standard "of the United States" pattern. (SEWilco 14:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC))[reply]
Rename. Despite appearing obvious, it may not be so to a reader from some other part of the world. While I may be able to name the states of the United States and the provinces of Canada, I'm stuck when it comes to the states of Mexico, for example. A category seems quite logical. siafu 22:51, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support. Good idea to spell out US, but sounds leaden and tautologous. But better than United States States, admittedly. :) Isn't there some standard formula that can used instead: Components/Constituent parts/Members, etc? Alai 03:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, I guess it exists mostly as relevant sub-cat of Category:Subdivisions of the United States Hiding talk 10:01, 4 October 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:Roman Catholic colleges and universities in Asia

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 Speedy rename per prior Cfr. ∞Who ?¿? 08:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a prior CfD missed listing this one. Rename to Category:Roman Catholic universities and colleges in Asia as per approved cfd. --Kbdank71 15:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 18:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Rename--Ezeu 20:21, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a speedy with a little bit of IAR assistance? -Splash^talk 03:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, though I'd say speedy per Splash. siafu 22:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 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:Phoenix Coyotes franchise

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. ∞Who ?¿? 19:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, tagged for deletion on Sept 14 by User:Ccwaters but not listed here. --Kbdank71 15:06, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. ∞Who ?¿? 18:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No argument. siafu 22:53, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 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:Natives of Lanarkshire

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. ∞Who ?¿? 20:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Scottish people are being categorised by council area. Lanarkshire is now split into two new categories: Category:Natives of North Lanarkshire, Category:Natives of South Lanarkshire. Mais oui! 10:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Osomec 18:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. ∞Who ?¿? 18:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As a rule it's probably better to categorise by traditional counties than by council boundaries, because the latter change all the time. JW 16:22, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The so-called "traditional counties" (sic) (eg. Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Perthshire) were themselves anglified inventions. The true, long-lasting, authentic unit of Scottish local government was the burgh, and they were abolished in 1975. No Scottish political party has stated any intent on mucking about with the existing 32 councils: they look set to stay for a good while yet. Perthshire, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire etc were also abolished in 1975: why on earth would Wikipedia be using them for categories? --Mais oui! 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Is council area really a good way of classifying people anyway? These categories aren't exactly bulging with entries at the moment and breaking the counties down in this way seems like over-categorisation. And can a person who died, for example, before South Lanarkshire was created really be classified as a "native of South Lanarkshire"? JW 20:47, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the "Lanarkshire" category was only started on 8 August 2005, and people had only started to notice these new "by council area" categorisations in the last few days. Most cats were set up correctly (there are 32 council areas in Scotland), but these three: Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Perthshire, were set up incongruously using the defunct pre-1975 local government areas. Don't worry: those cats will be very heavily populated, just have a look at the main Category:Scottish people by occupation - it grows ever bigger daily. All those people, and many more, will also be categorised by council area from now on, eg. look at the longer established Category:Natives of Edinburgh (established on 25 July 2005).--Mais oui! 21:01, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a supercat and for historical people. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a scheme to make Scottish categories useful. Susvolans ⇔ 07:26, 30 September 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:Natives of Perthshire

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 change). ∞Who ?¿? 20:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Scottish people are being categorised by council area. Perthshire is now split into two new categories: Category:Natives of Perth and Kinross, Category:Natives of Stirling. Mais oui! 10:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. ∞Who ?¿? 19:01, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above. JW
Delete - The so-called "traditional counties" (sic) (eg. Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Perthshire) were themselves anglified inventions. The true, long-lasting, authentic unit of Scottish local government was the burgh, and they were abolished in 1975. No Scottish political party has stated any intent on mucking about with the existing 32 councils: they look set to stay for a good while yet. Perthshire, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire etc were also abolished in 1975: why on earth would Wikipedia be using them for categories?--Mais oui! 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a supercat and for historical people. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a scheme to make Scottish categories useful. Susvolans ⇔ 07:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Closing note however it is now empty, and will probably be deleted shortly unless populated. ∞Who ?¿? 20:34, 4 October 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:Natives of Ayrshire

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 change). ∞Who ?¿? 20:21, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All Scottish people are being categorised by council area. Ayrshire is now split into three new categories: Category:Natives of North Ayrshire, Category:Natives of South Ayrshire, Category:Natives of East Ayrshire. Mais oui! 10:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete. ∞Who ?¿? 19:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As above, council boundaries change all the time. Remember Avon? JW 16:24, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The so-called "traditional counties" (sic) (eg. Lanarkshire, Ayrshire, Perthshire) were themselves anglified inventions. The true, long-lasting, authentic unit of Scottish local government was the burgh, and they were abolished in 1975. No Scottish political party has stated any intent on mucking about with the existing 32 councils: they look set to stay for a good while yet. Perthshire, Lanarkshire, Ayrshire etc were also abolished in 1975: why on earth would Wikipedia be using them for categories?--Mais oui! 17:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a supercat and for historical people. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as part of a scheme to make Scottish categories useful. Susvolans ⇔ 07:27, 30 September 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:Rugby League Players

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 Speedy rename per WP:CSD#Categories 3.2. ∞Who ?¿? 08:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Rugby league players. I think this counts as uncotroversial and I have taken the liberty of depopulating the category and moving the articles into the "correct" category. Grinner 09:39, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy - Miscapitalized category. TexasAndroid 13:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. Will be renamed on the 28th (or sooner) if no objections. ∞Who ?¿? 18:58, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be renamed? Category:Rugby league players already exists. Surely it needs deleted? Grinner 09:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note Really a merger as category exists as mentioned above. ∞Who ?¿? 08:07, 29 September 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:Films directed by James Cameron

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. ∞Who ?¿? 18:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

James Cameron has directed 10 films, as can be seen in the chronological list at James Cameron. The category is not as good as the list, since 1) it's incomplete, and 2) it's in alphabetical order, instead of chronological. The category should be deleted because it can never be as good as the related list.

The same reasoning goes for all the subcategories of Category:Films by director. I think this is an example of over-categorization, since the director's article will always have a superior list. dbenbenn | talk 03:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Personally, I'd think that this would be best suited by a template in cases where there aren't dozens of films. That way all the pages could be linked more directly. Grutness...wha? 04:42, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The catergory is pointless & a waste of space due to the fact that all the films are already on the director's article & also because the director's article will be updated/used more often than the backwater catergory. Spawn Man 04:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many directors templates were previously converted to categories from a Tfd discussion. Some of the templates got too large to be asthetically pleasing. Also you run into the problem of using two templates for two different directors on one film, it's better to list two director cats rather than having two big templates. ∞Who ?¿? 09:22, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Templates? Who's talking about templates? If movie A is directed by directors B and C, the movie article should have a sentence like "This movie was directed by B and C." It's okay to present encyclopedic information in the form of sentences, instead of template boxes or category links :). dbenbenn | talk 00:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

/:::I wish everybody thought that way :) ∞Who ?¿? 03:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm sure plenty of people use these. Osomec 18:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Question: have these been listified already and, if not, is that the intention? -Splash^talk 03:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Categorizing films by director is not unlike categorizing albums by artist, and nobody's suggesting that Category:Albums by artist needs to be overhauled. -Sean Curtin 23:52, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I feel the same goes for Category:Albums by artist, not that it's relevant here. For example, the first subcat I randomly chose, Category:Bad Brains albums, has only 1 article, whereas Bad Brains lists 13 albums, chronologically, at least three of which have articles. dbenbenn | talk 00:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Bhoeble 19:19, 1 October 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:Aviation and space exploration in Ukraine

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. ∞Who ?¿? 18:23, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a non-standard category. Rename category:Aviation in Ukraine in line with the other categories in Category:Aviation by country. I have placed the space category in category:Science and technology in Ukraine, which I have created as mentioned below. CalJW 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. ∞Who ?¿? 19:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 23:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 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:Deceased professional wrestlers

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 appropriate articles to Category:Professional wrestlers. ∞Who ?¿? 18:19, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first category for deceased persons that I have come across, and I think sets a bad precedent for similar deceased profession categories, clearly overcategorisation since the death year already appears as a cat. This category already exists as a list, so it should be deleted and the members moved to Category:Professional wrestlers for sorting into more specific wrestling cats.--nixie 01:55, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A very bad precedent. This issue has come up before. CalJW 02:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As Per Submitter/Merge I agree with Nixie, the category should be deleted & its members moved to Category:Professional wrestlers. Spawn Man 04:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge+delete per nom, where merge is needed. The fact that someone is dead is not so fascinating as to warrant an entire category, usually. It is given all the coverage it needs in the first few words of the article, or, if it isn't, it should be. -Splash^talk 03:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No argument. siafu 23:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merging where needed. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Osomec 20:32, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Everybody's dead sometime. The category subject is Wrestlers, and living or dead is determined by the presence of a death date in each one's articles. Otherwise, you will be having to constantly monitor to move people from Living active professional wrestlers to Living retired professional wrestlers to Deceased professional wrestlers. Another silly one is Category: Defunct companies. 12.73.198.19 01:39, 1 October 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:Education and science in Ukraine

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. ∞Who ?¿? 18:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We do not combine these two topics in national menus. Rename to standardCategory:Education in Ukraine and see below. I will create and populate the other standard category, category:Science and technology in Ukraine shortly. CalJW 01:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Osomec 18:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. No argument. siafu 23:07, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as suggested. James F. (talk) 23:35, 27 September 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:Members of the U.S. House from Minnesota to Category:U.S. Representatives from Minnesota

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 Superceded by umbrella Cfd. ∞Who ?¿? 04:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This change is to conform to the naming convention used for 35 subcategories of Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (the remaining state subcategories have not been created yet). If you would like to propose renaming all 38 existing subcategories, please make that a separate vote after this one is conluded. This issue was previously unresolved due to additional renaming suggestions. -- Reinyday, 01:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:United States representatives from Minnesota. We have repeatedly, time after time, expanded acronyms and I cannot think of a single good reason not to do these cats the same good service. As Reinyday says, we can repair the others in a blanket CfD later. In fact, I would suggest ending these CfDs, and settting up the blanket one immediately. -Splash^talk 03:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with Splash. ∞Who ?¿? 04:39, 27 September 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:Members of the U.S. House from Maryland to Category:U.S. Representatives from Maryland

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 Superceded by umbrella Cfd. ∞Who ?¿? 05:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This change is to conform to the naming convention used for 35 subcategories of Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (the remaining state subcategories have not been created yet). If you would like to propose renaming all 38 existing subcategories, please make that a separate vote after this one is conluded. This issue was previously unresolved due to additional renaming suggestions. -- Reinyday, 01:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:United States representatives from Maryland. See my comment further up for rationale. -Splash^talk 03:33, 27 September 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:Members of the U.S. House from Kansas to Category:U.S. Representatives from Kansas

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 Superceded by umbrella Cfd. ∞Who ?¿? 05:00, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This change is to conform to the naming convention used for 35 subcategories of Category:Members of the U.S. House of Representatives (the remaining state subcategories have not been created yet). If you would like to propose renaming all 38 existing subcategories, please make that a separate vote after this one is conluded. This issue was previously unresolved due to additional renaming suggestions. -- Reinyday, 01:26, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename to Category:United States representatives from Kansas. See my comment further up for rationale. -Splash^talk 03:33, 27 September 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.