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 15:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong capitalisation, wrong word order, non-standard name, empty. Best just to get rid of it. There is a category:Schools in South Africa. Delete CalJW 22:08, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as proposed. Osomec 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep STopCat 23:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Care to give a reason? CalJW 23:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right, the category is unnecessary STopCat 00:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Carina22 00:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - N (talk) 22:27, 11 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.

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 15:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Streets shouldn't have a capital. Other streets categories are "Streets of", and some are "Streets and squares of..." It is better to combine the two as separate categories would be too small. Rhollenton 20:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Rhollenton 20:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Osomec 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename CalJW 23:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Carina22 00:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename --Vizcarra 00:50, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - N (talk) 22:25, 11 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:56, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are two similar categories:

• Category:Mexico City stadiums
• Category:Stadiums in Mexico City

I would like to see both of them merged into a new category called Category:Sports venues in Mexico City. This matches national Category:Sports venues in Mexico. It will allow places like indoor arena and race tracks to be added. There won't be enough articles for separate categories. Rhollenton 18:41, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename I created many of the sports venue categories. I meant to propose deletion for the small number of stadiums categories, which are partial duplicates, but I didn't get round to it. Osomec 14:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Will be rather small even if combined. Carina22 00:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both into Sports venues in Mexico City as proposed. - N (talk) 22:24, 11 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.

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 17:30, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As below - this category is mis-capitalized. Frodet 15:03, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy for miscapitalizations. - TexasAndroid 15:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• rename Osomec 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename Carina22 00:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename

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. Martin 17:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this category mis-capitalized. The correct category is Category:MicroProse and has already been created. Frodet 14:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy for miscapitalizations. - TexasAndroid 15:44, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Osomec 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete You can nominated things like this in the speedy deletion section above. Carina22 00:50, 5 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.

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 17:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Amend to standard "in" form for man made objects in line with parent category Category:Mosques in Turkey.

• Rename Category:Mosques in Istanbul. CalJW 14:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Rename. - Darwinek 10:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the original is understandable and shorter STopCat 23:27, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Consistency is more important. Carina22 00:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename All of these should be speedies, not just the country categories. Bhoeble 12:45, 5 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.

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 15:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A rather bizarre collection of articles. - EurekaLott 02:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I am the author of this category and I do not see why it is bizarre seeing as it is a notable term and relevant in the Cyberpunk world. The Mad Max series along with several video games and other articles listed in that category have been considered 'dieselpunk' or 'atomicpunk' in genre and style - therefore I see no purpose to delete the category. If not because it holds true to the articles (perhaps you disagree, then that's fine seeing as you have your own opinion of course) - however it is wrong to delete a category which will be of importance for future works. Sky Captain is clearly a definitive article to be placed in such a category. I hope you reconsider the deletion of this category. Otherwise you might as well put Steampunk up for deletion as well seeing as it is as relevant as a term used today by gamers and followers of the genre. Piecraft 03:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has plenty of content. Bhoeble 12:45, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep The collection may be bizarre in itself, yes. But there is a fullness and coherency to the collection, as well detailed on the Dieselpunk page. Aside from that, Dieselpunk, Steampunk, and Cyberpunk are all reasonably recognizable (if young) subgenres of sci-fi/fantasy, and I can't firmly deny any of the category entries as "not belonging" -- Taiichi «talk» 06:56, 6 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The CTV Television Network in Canada consists mostly of owned and operated stations. Affiliates and O&Os are not the same thing.  Denelson83  00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename assuming the above is correct. Carina22 00:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. The above is correct, most (but not all) of the CTV stations are owned by BBS (Baton). It occured a few years ago when Baton went on a buying spree and scooped up most of the major non-Baton CTV stations, and regional subnetworks. 132.205.45.148 19:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The entity you refer to as Baton is known today as Bell Globemedia.  Denelson83  23:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This was done this way because "affiliates" is (or at least was, at the time) the standard Wikipedia naming format for a category of this type. Category:CBS network affiliates, for instance, includes both affiliates and O&O's. Category:NBC network affiliates includes both affiliates and O&O's. I'm not opposed to the rename, but just wanted to clarify that it was done the way it was for a reason (and that the new category has to include all stations from the old category — having two separate categories for affiliates vs. O&O's isn't justifiable by either Wikipedia policy or the actual number of stations involved.) Bearcat 02:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I know the "__ network affiliate" was a sort of naming convention, but that doesn't mean we should continue to perpetuate an error. - Hinto 23:17, 6 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Global Television Network in Canada consists of exclusively-owned and operated stations. Again, affiliates and O&Os are not the same thing.  Denelson83  00:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Rhollenton 17:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename assuming the facts stated are correct. Carina22 00:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, AFAIK, CanWest is sole owner of Global stations 132.205.45.148 19:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• This was done this way because "affiliates" is (or at least was, at the time) the standard Wikipedia naming format for a category of this type. Category:CBS network affiliates, for instance, includes both affiliates and O&O's. Category:NBC network affiliates includes both affiliates and O&O's. I'm not opposed to the rename, but just wanted to clarify that it was done the way it was for a reason. Bearcat 02:49, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, as per my entry for Category:CTV network affiliates. - Hinto 23:17, 6 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.

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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Archilocus" is a misspelling of "Archilochus", a genus of hummingbirds. The correct spelling can be seen at either article in the category, namely Black-chinned Hummingbird or Ruby-throated Hummingbird, and in any reference on North American birds. JerryFriedman 00:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nominator. CalJW 14:01, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy for misspellings? - TexasAndroid 15:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What's that? I must have missed it when I was trying to find out how to get a category renamed. —JerryFriedman 16:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See further up the page. Osomec 14:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I came directly to this section from a link. —JerryFriedman 18:14, 5 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.