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 --Kbdank71 13:49, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Category:Cinema of Mexico, to be consistent with the categories about the cinemas of all the other countries. --Vizcarra 21:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC) Proposed on WP:RM 4 August; I moved it here August 5. Septentrionalis 18:48, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator, or else suspend pending resolution of the general issue. -- Visviva 17:44, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to be consistent at this point. We can rename them all after the titles discussion if need be. --Kbdank71 16:28, 9 August 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.

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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming to Category:Mobile network operators, which is unambiguous and correctly capitalized to boot. A "mobile phone company" could include manufacturers like Nokia, which is obviously not the intent. Jpatokal 02:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Cellular phone service providers would be more appropriate, really. "Mobile network" is quite vague (not to mention synergizing with a pro-active tough love paradigm). siafu 02:32, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per siafu. K1Bond007 05:43, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose this particular name. Cellular is an Americanism, they're called mobile phones in the rest of the world, and Cellular phone is a redirect to mobile phone. Can you explain why you find "mobile network" to be vague? Jpatokal 03:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Mobile phone service companies. Maurreen (talk) 06:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per siafu. "Service providers" is one of their proper names. Finding a ref is very hard, but compare Internet service provider and Service provider. We do already have Mobile network operator however. The difference is that there are some Mobile virtual network operators in this list, and they are not network operators in their own rights (they piggyback on another, existing nework) e.g. Virgin Mobile is a UK example. So "service providers" is more correct and more general. Googlebattle: "Mobile phone service companies": 358 hits, "Mobile phone service providers": 31,500,000 hits, "mobile network operators": 101,000 hits (and is not inappropriate).
  • Um, I think you left out the quotes — I get 18,500 hits for "Mobile phone service provider" and 35,000 for "Mobile network operator". "Network operator" is the industry term, "service provider" usually refers to third-party value-added service providers (ringtones and all that jazz). For what it's worth, I work with mobile telco for a living... Jpatokal 03:36, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename I would suggest simply Category:Mobile phone operators ("Mobile phone operators" score 575,000 Google hits, the singular form score 97,000). It does not imply that they own the network or that they are rintgtone suppliers, and it can't be confused with companies that make mobile phones. --Sherool 14:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does imply that they operate the phones though! Which they don't, of course, the users do that! -Splash 14:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The abbreviated "Mobile operator" might also be an option — although I still don't understand the objections to the full "Mobile network operator". Jpatokal 02:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per siafu. --Kbdank71 16:26, 9 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In the light of the long-time existence of Category:Law enforcement, this is a completely extraneous category that will merely duplicate that category. Although police could in some respects be considered a subset, in real terms the two terms are used pretty much interchangeably and most articles could equally appear in both. -- Necrothesp 22:55, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the fuzz. Ah, does that ever feel good. siafu 23:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with some attempt to redirect otherwise it is back in short time. Pavel Vozenilek 00:13, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Roxanne. You don't have to put on the red light... --Kbdank71 16:22, 9 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:43, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

21th century? wtf? (please rename to something a little more sensible). Dunc|☺ 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Category:Newspaper publishers of the 20th and 21st century. should also go to category:Newspaper publishers of the 20th and 21st centuries or maybe category:modern newspaper publishers?Dunc|☺ 22:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Modern is only modern in a certain viewpoint, so that doesnt work either. Simply splitting them into Category:Newspaper publishers of the 20th century Category:Newspaper publishers of the 21th century seems like the sharpest thing to do.
• Rename, and if they are split, "21th" century is still erroneous. siafu 23:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Merge into existing cats Category:Newspaper publishers of the 20th and Category:Newspaper publishers of the 21st century. Maurreen (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Maurreen. -Splash 17:25, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• NOTE: I'm deleting this because a) it's empty, so there is nothing to split and renaming is pointless, and b) there are already populated cats of Category:Newspaper publishers of the 20th century and Category:Newspaper publishers of the 21st century. --Kbdank71 13:43, 11 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed to Category:Historical counties of Croatia. -- Adam78 21:48, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. A proper use of the oft-mistaken terminology. siafu 23:53, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, not really controversial. Pavel Vozenilek 16:42, 7 August 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.

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 depopulate --Kbdank71 13:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was referred here from Wikipedia:Bot requests. The category in question is a parent category, and some 400+ articles contain both this category and an occupation subcategory. I don't relish cleaning up this clutter by hand, and I doubt the two editors responsible would be willing to either. Gamaliel 18:42, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• When you say clean up, what exactly are you proposing? --Kbdank71 19:03, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Getting a bot to remove all articles from the category. Gamaliel 08:22, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you not want to then delete the empty cat? -Splash 17:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Honestly, I don't care one way or the other, I just thought that the cat was part of a preexisiting heirarchical structure that I didn't want to screw up by taking a piece out. Gamaliel 20:38, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Depopulate Osomec 15:53, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Depopulate This category seems to be 'owned' by an individual who insists on placing Puerto Ricans in both that category and whatever other Puerto Rican-(profession) categories are applicable. --Hooperbloob 21:52, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We should not be keeping empty categories around. --Kbdank71 16:19, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It won't be empty, it contains Category:Puerto Rican people by occupation, wich again contain numerous subcategories. The problem is that everyone who is listed in any of the sub-categories are also listed in the parent category. --Sherool 18:16, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Depopulate iff the bot can avoid depopulating articles who are not listed in any of the subcats (or plans are in place to re-add such articles after the bot run). --Sherool 18:16, 9 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that the category be renamed to Category:Windows users (if that's ambiguous, maybe Category:Microsoft Windows users?) in order to fit in with the other broad categories in Category:Wikipedians by operating system. ^…Markaci 2005-08-4 T 18:12:43 Z

• If anything, it should be Microsoft Windows Wikipedians, or some such. But personally, I think that's not a great way to categorize wikipedians, so delete. --Kbdank71 18:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sort of subjective, don't you think? It's only appearing on user pages, and the user chooses to add it to his/her page. The plan was to add sub-OS's of Windows, Linux, etc as subcategories to the general Windows, Linux categories. -- BRIAN0918  18:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What could such people have in common? Why not Category:People who like eat cheese, it feels more relevant than this. This stuff belongs into a user group, not on Wikipedia. I do use XP and yet I see no reason for it. Pavel Vozenilek 19:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, then you'd have to have Category:Wikipedians who delight in all manifestations of the Terpsichorean muse, and then we'd never see the end of it. --Kbdank71 19:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Although this is up for rename only, I see no point in categorizing Wikipedians especially by operating system. Delete. K1Bond007 19:22, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, although all these various flavours of Wikipede are fairly lighthearted, this one is really just catcruft. -Splash 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename The nominator has a strong point. Wikipedians may opt to categorize themselves, or not. it's pureply optional. that's fFine. But if we are going to use "windows", let's use the more effective Category:Microsoft Windows users, not just winXP. because we don't have "debian linux", and "openBSD", and "netBSD", and on and on and on. We could, but let's not, hey? Skotte 22:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, administrators are cautioned to take note: So fFar all votes to delete seem to be on the basis of catagorizing wikipedians by OS as a possible practice, and have nothing to do with this specific category. Making the votes off-topic and void. Only actual votes to rename or not should be counted. Skotte 22:34, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is never the case. Voters are free to vote any way they like, and occaionally in CfD a vote produces an outcome the nominator did not intend. The votes to delete are entirely valid, and mine stands. -Splash 23:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • All votes will be counted. --Kbdank71 01:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then we also should delete Category:Linux users and Category:BSD users, correct? I dont want to violate WP:POINT, but if one goes then all should go. Skotte 05:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, they were not nominated here and have not been brought into the discussion for deletion. If you want them all to be deleted, nominate them all. You can create an umbrella CfD if you like, to save time. -Splash 05:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:People with 33,542 hairs, Category:People with 33,541 hairs... siafu 23:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per siafu :) MicahMN | Talk 00:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, trivia. Radiant_>|< 08:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What's next? Wikipedians who eat apples versus Wikipedians who eat oranges? If someone really wants this sort of info, use a list. RedWolf 01:24, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, possibly listify. Honestly, people. Is this really going to fill up the Wikimedia Project servers? Does it have any effect on article space? Is there any reason at all to be troubled by its existence? Don't we all have several hundred more important things to do than this? -- Visviva 17:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Feel free to create such a list if you think it's important enough. siafu 02:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete trivial. feydey 02:18, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pointless Cynical 09:49, 11 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. Redundant considering it's in a subcat of Category:Computer and video games by platform. I don't see a need for this. K1Bond007 16:58, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Kbdank71 18:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as per Kbdank71. Pavel Vozenilek 19:13, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Console games is a useless name anyway, as the defining line between consoles and PCs looks like its going to blur even more with the X360 et al. 'PS2 games' or 'Xbox games' would be better categories, this is just nonsense. Cynical 11:22, 5 August 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.

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 (keep) --Kbdank71 13:29, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny category, no chance of growth since helicopter insertions are generally preferred to amphibious landings (incidentally, one of the category's four articles is actually an aircraft carrier) Cynical 15:57, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete seems like over categorization to me. I'm sure everything in it will fFit better in a much more useful category. Skotte 22:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP already has a 'ships of the royal navy' (don't know the exact name, but this thing is a subcat of it) which should be fine Cynical 11:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Perhaps my choice of "amphibious warfare" over "assault ships" was a poor choice. I'll accept a rename. GraemeLeggett 13:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Already has thirteen entries in the category - still too small? GraemeLeggett 13:58, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hardly tiny. Bigger than many other categories. And why would the RN still be procuring them if they didn't want an amphibious capability? Also remember that historical articles are perfectly valid on Wikipedia, and so there may well be other articles about historical amphibious warfare ships still to be written. It's also perfectly valid to insert subcats of large categories. In fact, it's very useful. And Category:Royal Navy ships already has 22 other subcategories, so what's so bad about this one? Eighteen minutes after the creation of a category is a little premature to be informing us that it has no contents, don't you think? -- Necrothesp 19:22, 6 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I do not look at timestamps when deciding whether or not to nominate for deletion. Any article/category etc. on WP should be of sufficient standard, regardless of its age Cynical 09:48, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems like a reasonable category. JW 11:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename "warfare ships" to "warships". Radiant_>|< 09:34, August 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment its "amphibious warfare ships" not "amphibious warfare ships" the ships are not amphibious. GraemeLeggett 09:40, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and at current name). James F. (talk) 09:09, 11 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:17, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Several discussions on VFD reform are under progress, but some people are preempting those discussions by already using the unsanctioned mechanism of which this category is part. That is improper. Radiant_>|< 10:41, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. A. How can we demonstrate that category-based deletion can work, if we can't, well, demonstrate it? B. At present, the few articles listed in this category are also listed through VfD. Therefore, this does not represent any disruption of that process (although VfD is direly in need of disruption). C. Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Just because Ed slapped the community between the eyes with a clue-by-four doesn't mean that it's OK to just strike randomly at anything Ed-associated. This nomination seems to be aimed at preventing any constructive solution to the VfD cesspool. -- Visviva 12:04, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • A.Get feedback before rashly starting a test run. At present, consensus is opposed to the entire idea of category deletion in this way. B.I never said it was, but it's also ultimately not going to prove anything in this way. C.You really need to read WP:POINT before accusing others thereof. D.WP:NPA, WP:FAITH, WP:CIV. Radiant_>|< 12:44, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Discuss and refine the proposal and get wide acceptance from the community before you implement this. What if VfD and Categorized Deletion or whatever you want to call it come to opposite conclusions on the articles that are doubly listed? This isn't disruptive by itself, but could become disruptive if that happens. android79 12:50, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Appears to be an improper process. Calsicol 13:31, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seeing that the Wikipedia:Requests_for_deletion proposal is failing by an almost 80% margin (more like 90%+ if we count the "this vote is invalid" group too) it seems unlikely to realistically pass, and its category should go. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per reasons above. --Kbdank71 18:46, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is almost a WP:POINT "experimental" and everything. -Splash 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: harmless experiment until conflict over specific deletion, which should not be handled here. I would join a consensus to rename the cat, but there doesn't appear to be one. Septentrionalis 18:59, 5 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match other subcategories under Category:Asian Americans — J3ff 06:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : Shouldn't it be Lao Americans? Grutness...wha? 11:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Lao" is for the domininant ethnic group, while "Laotian" is for any citizen of Laos.--Pharos 06:17, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete ethnic subcats. -Splash 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Skotte 22:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. No argument. siafu 23:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Compound modifiers should be hyphenated. Maurreen (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Many Americans consider hyphenation offensive, which is why the articles and categories for almost all the other ethnic groups in the country are without hyphens.--Pharos 06:21, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Lao Americans. — Instantnood 14:37, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment.Please read my comment above. "Lao" is not the same thing as "Laotian".--Pharos 22:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which group of people are we referring to? Americans who are Lao by ethnicity, or Americans who came from Laos? — Instantnood 20:27, August 6, 2005 (UTC)
• Maybe this category should be deleted, since the only article in it is about Chai Vang, who is of Hmong descent. And recategorize Chai Vang under Category:Hmong Americans. — J3ff 06:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree if that's the case. For these people only the ethnic group and present citizenship are relevant. — Instantnood 16:54, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per nominator, or delete if neccesary.--Huaiwei 15:01, 10 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:11, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request renaming Category:Canada-related lists to fit the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxcvbnm (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 August 2005

• Rename for consistency. ∞Who?¿? 01:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename both suggested. Pavel Vozenilek 01:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer to Wikipedia:Category titles. Radiant_>|< 13:40, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. The supercat just went through a cfd rename. --Kbdank71 19:05, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I don't think the category titles discussion is likely to apply to this, since it will use the word "Canada" either at the beginning or the end of the cat name. -Splash 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Category titles is unlikely to apply. siafu 23:59, 4 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request renaming Category:United States-related lists to fit the template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxcvbnm (talk • contribs) 00:39, 4 August 2005

• Rename for consistency. ∞Who?¿? 01:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• RENAME to Category:United States of America related lists 132.205.44.43 19:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom. --Kbdank71 19:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -Splash 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:00, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: What template? Maurreen (talk) 06:13, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good question. I think s/he means "precedent" or something. We have Category:Lists of country-related topics which uses the form propsed here. -Splash 17:53, 5 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:07, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting deletion. Someone placed one article in this category by mistake. I unwittingly propogated the fFirst person's error by making an actual page fFor it. There is, in fFact, a perfectly acceptable Category:Alternate reality games which stands in good health. Skotte 06:47, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge as capitalization fix. Radiant_>|< 09:27, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Shouldn't it be Alternative..., or is that another UK/US difference? Grutness...wha? 11:51, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, to my knownledge it has always been commonly known as "Alternate". K1Bond007 19:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • The same is true to me (English-person's) knowledge as well, although I couldn't tell you why. -Splash 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In American Sci-fi, the phrases "alternate dimension", "alternate universe", "alternate reality", etc., which should have all been alternative, have been misused for so long that they are now the accepted form. --Pagrashtak 17:48, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • ...whereas here the phrases are "alternative dimension", "alternative universe" and "alternative reality", etc. Which is why I wondered whether it was a UK/US language thing. Grutness...wha? 01:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC) (former president, NZ National Association for Science Fiction)[reply]
• Delete, empty, per nom K1Bond007 19:18, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unneeded. -Splash 20:37, 4 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:06, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This cat is more or less a duplicate of Category:Twin towns. Sister is a rather sexist term as cities are not female.--Kurando 09:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: To my American ears, "twin towns" sounds rather strange here. It suggests two towns that are close to one another, a la the Twin Cities. I had never before heard sister cities referred to as "twins." Is this a European usage?

• Agree with the comment. Sounds very odd to say "twin town". - grubber 13:23, 2005 August 4 (UTC)
• Czech language knowns "sister city" (translated), although the term isn't used very much. Pavel Vozenilek 19:18, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• In Norwegian the consept is known as "friendship cities" (translated), but I'll defer to native English speakers to descide the best term in English (though "twin cities" sounds strange in my ears too). --Sherool 14:58, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Over here in the UK, we talk of a town being "twinned" with another, so perhaps it is Anglo-centric or something. -Splash 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I hear the two terms equally often (Sister city/Twin town). I'd agree that Twin towns could be confused with the US term Twin city for two conurban centres (e.g. Seattle-Tacoma), and since the two terms are equally used, I don't see any reason why we shouldn't keep this one the way it is. Grutness...wha? 02:56, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep category:twin towns. — Instantnood 14:39, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Sister cities to avoid confusion with Category:Twin cities. siafu 15:19, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepBillyCreamCorn 19:43, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: another alternative I saw is partner city. Pavel Vozenilek 03:14, 9 August 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.

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 --Kbdank71 13:03, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

CfR/CfD templates were added, but categories were not listed here. (I say put 'em all in Category:Rugrats and be done with it, myself.) tregoweth 19:34, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• upMerge per nominator. This is overcategorization. -Splash 20:37, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. No argument. siafu 00:02, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge (if such a thing exists) --FuriousFreddy 01:04, 5 August 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.