Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Congressional" should be lower case: "congressional." Even when referring to a specific congress (i.e., the United States Congress), the adjective should be lower case.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Better matches other category names for Microsoft Windows technology categories. -/-Warren 19:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Misnamed category: it's contents is not a secondary meaning of the word "Buffy" ("comics"), rather comics on the theme of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Rename to match Category:Star Trek comics. This could have been speedied but no convention is listed for the comics categories. kingboyk (talk) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be too much over-categorization here. The city isn't that large so the schools can easily just go in a "High schools in South Dakota" category. If consensus here insists on keeping this category, then it should probably be renamed to something like "Schools in Sioux Falls, South Dakota" instead of the "of Sioux Falls." Metros (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all into the terribly unpopulated Category:Marathi-language films. At the moment there's only 8 of these, splitting them into years just gets in the way. -- Prove It(talk) 13:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nom Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this category is new (less than 2 days old). It may be populated with more entries. After all not all categories start with a dozen articles. -- Mayuresh 16:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all the top-level cat has existed since March and only has 8 articles. When there are several hundred, it might be worth splitting into sub cats. Lugnuts (talk) 17:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No discussion predates the creation of this category, and it's mass-population. A number of more suitable titles could be used - Yoga schools, Yogas, etc. 'Yoga types' sounds too vague. Sfacets 11:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If the category scheme is intended to capture "ambassadors by the countries they represent" then "ambassadors of country X" is the correct formula, I believe. Tim!'s symmetry doesn't work because "from" has two meaings: directionality (symmetrical with "to") and origin. Not usually a problem but a problem with ambassadors because they can originate in place "X" but be working for / currently affiliated with place "Y". --Lquilter (talk) 12:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all in Ambassadors of xxx. "From" has the problems Lquilter underlined. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Ambassadors of Foo. We had a debate on this very recently - Iran was it? Does anyone have the link? Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bhg! This renamed a bunch to "of". Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How about Ambassadors representing Foo? I like that a little better than Ambassadors of Foo, but either would be fine. -- Prove It(talk) 14:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Ambassadors of foo". In the previous discussion, I supported the "from foo" format, but I am now persuaded that "of" is the more technically correct usage, and it is important to standardise. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of sounds correct to me. --kingboyk (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Ambassadors of foo" I had originally made the opposite nomination, but am now convinced that "of" is more appropriate. The most important thing anyway is that they be consistently named. While we're talking about these categories, are people happy with the names Category:Ambassadors by mission country and Category:Ambassadors by country of origin? I made them up, and am not at all sure they are ideal. LeSnail (talk) 19:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category - there is no need for this - every article on Wikipedia has unsourced statements. Bduke (talk) 08:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There has been previous discussion about this category on its talk page. It was tagged for speedy deletion which I think is inappropriate for such a massive category. I think it should be debated here. I have no view. The rationale I give above is what the speedy tag said. --Bduke (talk) 08:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Every wikipedia article does not have unsourced statements, but many do. It's useful to have them all in a category as it makes them easier to find for those who wish to improve them--Phoenix-wiki(talk·contribs) 11:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. This category helps articles to improve. Not all articles have unsourced statements. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. "Heros" (besides being misspelled) is unacceptably subjective for categorizing people. Renaming also broadens the scope so that any non-"heroic" people may be appropriaely categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 09:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There does not appear such a scheme in place. The subcats of the wars cats are about specific wars or about wars at the national level. Otto4711 (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - eponymous overcategorization for a TV show. Material is interlinked and appropriately categorized (and one article is about to get deleted at AFD) and does not warrant a category per numerous precedents. Otto4711 (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete both - per extensive precedent we don't categorize television performers on the basis of the networks on which they appear. Since the categorization scheme isn't used, the lead category for it should be deleted as well. Otto4711 (talk) 00:58, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(see below) the main cat for the lists - maybe rename & certainly add a note to the cat explaining it should only contain articles. Listify or Delete Al Jazeera. Johnbod (talk) 13:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we already have Category:Lists of television presenters which doesn't look to be large enough to require subdivision, so rather than rename, perhaps merge the nationality category there? Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Merge main cat there. It can be split if this is ever needed. Johnbod (talk) 20:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
