The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Following up from this discussion, in which we rejected a change from "Kyrgyzstani" to "Kyrgyz" in the name of consistency and it was generally agreed that "Kyrgyz" is an appropriate adjective for an ethnicity and "Kyrgyzstani" is the appropriate adjective for the nationality. The nominated categories are nationality categories, not ethnicity ones. Of course, there will be a great degree of overlap between people who fall into the two classifications, and some of these categories (especially Category:Kyrgyz people) may be able to legitimately be re-created as ethnicity categories, but for now we need to convert them into nationality ones. These are all "people from Kyrgyzstan", not "people of Kyrgyz ethnicity". This proposed system will mirror how things are dealt with re: Category:Kazakhstani people (nationality) and Category:Kazakh people (ethnicity). (For this nomination I haven't included the categories within Category:Kyrgyz culture, which may require a fuller consideration of whether the culture categories are meant to be country or by national ethnic group.) Good Ol’factory(talk)23:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The proposed rename makes it sound like they're time travelers. At any rate, oppose because it follows the conventions observed by every other member of Category:People by century. The use of BC is, for better or for worse, also observed all the way up the category structure to Category:Centuries and all included articles. There's probably a MOS on point somewhere addressing the date issue, as I know I've seen ridiculous edit wars over it. Postdlf (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
+Convention is to begin with the century name in people categories.
+To the contry, Wikipedia policy clearly states that there is no preferrence of BCE/CE over BC/AD or vise versa.
+Per "BC" vs. "BCE" the convention is to follow the pattern of the parent category, which uses BC, as does every other member of Category:People by century.
+Convention is to not change from BC to BCE or vise versa except to follow a convention.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Empty; easier to list here than waiting four days since it was just emptied (is there a template somewhere to set a timer for C1 deletion?) –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a maintenance category. It is intended to be empty from time to time as issues are addressed (and to fill up as new issues are discovered). bd2412T 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To match main article and since the contents of the category include more then products with the Ford brand. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete, OCAT. The two included species are widely distributed throughout North America and their articles do not even mention Michigan. The only geographic subcategory of Category:Orthoptera is for Europe. If someone wants to create one for North America, be my guest, but otherwise these are already in Category:Insects of North America so no merging is needed. Postdlf (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Articles in category are not specific to Michigan, nor is it likely that any significant number Michigan-limited orthoptera articles would ever exist, since insects are not known for respecting human political boundaries. --RL0919 (talk) 15:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, OCAT. The only entry does not even mention Michigan; instead, it's an Asian species that was introduced to North America and is now spread throughout the NE United States. Category:Dictyoptera only has subcategories for taxa, none for regions, and certainly none for subnational entities. Postdlf (talk) 20:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. With only one article, the category would hardly be justified even if the article was Michigan-specific, which it isn't. --RL0919 (talk) 15:28, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge, OCAT. Neither of the two included articles even mention Michigan, but instead are of much wider distribution; one is even primarily known as a European species. There are no other region-specific subcategories of Category:Arachnids. Aside from Category:Spiders of Chile, the only geographic subcategories of Category:Spiders (which both included "Michigan arachnids" are) are for continents; certainly none for subnational entities. Postdlf (talk) 20:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support merge. The articles have no Michigan-specific content, and I know of no justification for classifying insects based on human political divisions. --RL0919 (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2010 Winter Olympics ice hockey roster templates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep (and rename main article), as the current company almost exclusively refers to itself as SGI. In part this is to differentiate "modern" SGI (Silicon Graphics International, the rechristened Rackable Systems) from "historical" Silicon Graphics, Inc.- choster (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category was populated by {{Cleanup-Pitt}}, a cleanup template used only on The Pitt News at the time. I redirected the template to {{Cleanup}} because its scope seemed too small to have a whole cleanup template, and now this cat is empty. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then wait for four days, and speedy it. You did wisely, especially since the template's creator (who probably was the one who was volunteering to check the category's contents), hasn't been on Wikipedia since April 2008. Debresser (talk) 19:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know if this would be a controversial discussion because I also redirected the template without discussion; I don't care how the category is deleted, as long as there isn't any major opposition to it. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category = original research by User:Gospelnous. Category only contains one article. That article also consists of original research by User:Gopspelnous. Citation goes to an unpublished manuscript, a rather thin reed upon which to based a category. I can imagine the the user would like to add articles on various economists like Hayek to the category, but he will most likely fail to obtain consensus since that categorization would also be original research. — goetheanॐ14:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment Renaming to surname would be a very bad precedent, even in cases like Montesquieu; it creates ambiguity and inconsistency, and sets an informal tone. The category should follow the name of the article or default to the full name. I don't understand the "too long" argument; no-one types out category names anyway. So, first preference to Category:Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, without objection to Ally's suggestions above. Skomorokh, barbarian 06:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
rename per nom. It's clear that the current name is not how these are named. Whether they should all be "Cinema of Foo" or "Fooian cinema" can be resolved in the future. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
rename/merge per Occuli's suggestion. I realise "international rules players" are how players of this sport are usually colloquially referred to in Ireland, but this is, well, stupid (I'm just feeling very non-eloquent right now, so all the histrionic Wikidramatists out there please don't accuse me of anti-Irishism or other related prejudices, as is your usual practice). They don't play "international rules", they play "international rules football". Good Ol’factory(talk)07:06, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment: The main article was just written and it seems that the ship class was a transitional class considered armored cruisers when built, but later re-classed by the Imperial Japanese Navy as battlecruisers (which they were for the majority of their service life). — Bellhalla (talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per nominator. To avoid confusion with the vocal aspirations of the continent. Debresser (talk)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: these two seem to be meant for describing the same group of people, and the suggestion here is to merge the considerably less developed 'category tree' into the more developed one Mayumashu (talk) 00:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is of course typical that the one is not yet categorized under the other as a sub-cat, but i'm not sure a full merge is right. By no means all educationists were or are academics, including many of the most famous like Friedrich Fröbel, A.S. Neill etc. If only to keep it in academics trees, a Rename to Category:Academic educationists & placement as a sub-cat may be best. Johnbod (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.