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 15:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a category for manufacturers whose cars have Sirius Radio receivers as an option. At worst this is no more than an advert, at best its no more than a list. JW 22:23, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It's hardly a notable factor for these international car manufacturers that they sell models in the US which have this feature. Valiantis 04:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Advert/trivia. Piccadilly 15:59, 30 January 2006 (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 --Kbdank71 15:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to conform with the main article title. KramarDanIkabu 19:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Confusing... the main articles are Titans (comics) and Teen Titans (animated series). The former of the two starts with the words "Teen Titans". Radiant_>|< 07:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Teen Titans (animated series) is not the main article. What gives you that idea? KramarDanIkabu 18:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. – Seancdaug 05:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. While I understand that this is the current DC parlance, many more people will know this group from the TV show "Teen Titans." So making this change seems likely to be less useful than leaving it alone.--Mike Selinker 20:27, 31 January 2006 (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 15:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only subcategory in Category:Churches by city which is not in the preferred format apart from those for Italian cities nominated below. Rename CalJW 14:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Rename - Pureblade | ^Θ 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - N (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Longhair 22:21, 29 January 2006 (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 15:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the categories for churches in Italy are not in the standard "in" format:

• Category:churches of Emilia Romagna --> Category:Churches in Emilia Romagna
• Category:Churches of Umbria --> Category:Churches in Umbria
• Category:Italian Basilica churches --> Category:Basilica churches in Italy
• Category:churches of Florence --> Category:Churches in Florence
• Category:Basilica churches of Rome --> Category:Basilica churches in Rome
• Category:churches of Rome --> Category:Churches in Rome
• Category:Basilica churches of Florence --> Category:Basilica churches in Florence
• Category:churches of Venice --> Category:Churches in Venice
• Category:Basilica churches of Venice --> Category:Basilica churches in Venice
• Category:Churches of the Lazio --> Category:Churches in the Lazio
• Category:Churches of Lombardy --> Category:Churches in Lombardy
• Category:Churches of Milan --> Category:Churches in Milan
• Category:Churches of Tuscany --> Category:Churches in Tuscany
• Category:Abbeys of Tuscany --> Category:Abbeys in Tuscany
• Category:Churches of the Veneto --> Category:Churches in the Veneto

Rename all CalJW 14:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all - Pureblade | ^Θ 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom - N (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:19, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No rename. Standard practice, among people who deal in such things, is "Churches of X". Notice for example the names of the 4 leading websites listed in Category:Churches of Rome (q.v.). There's also a reason for "Churches of X" rather than "Churches in X": the churches of a city are viewed by its people and the visitors to the city as organic to the city and its history, not some kind of accident, that some churches plopped themselves down in the city. Bill 23:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• No rename. As per Bill vote. Possibly, only rename Italian Basilica churches category --Panairjdde 14:19, 2 February 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has only two articles - the airport article and a sub-article which has been merged into the main one. Each airport doesn't need its own category. Dbinder 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (nominator) Dbinder 13:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. CalJW 14:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. - Pureblade | ^Θ 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An article doesnt need its own category - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dussst, I could see it for one with numerous articles about it (Heathrow or O'Hare maybe?). When the articles are there, the cat can be recreated. Josh 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Josh. - N (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a useful category. -- Longhair 02:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Longhair 02:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a news service. CalJW 03:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per CalJW. - Pureblade | ^Θ 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It is useful as it is the only way to categorize these five individuals. Otherwise delete the articles. --Vizcarra 19:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Vizcarra's keep rationale is 1) obviously incorrect, given that all of the articles in fact have other categories, and 2) irrelevant, as categories are not necessary to justify an article's existence by any established criteria. Postdlf 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (breathe... breathe more) I see that "incorrect rationale" is a term for "I don't understand your rationale". These five people were grouped as "Mexican people" but how is somebody notable for being Mexican? They are not notable for being Mexican but for being in the news, they just happen to be Mexican. --Vizcarra 23:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being Mexican does not give one notability, but nationality is a notable fact about an individual that is worthy of classification, which is why a significant portion of our category structure is based around that trait. Category:Mexican people is better than nothing if we don't know where else to put them (as with the homeless guy who lived in a school), but if they weren't in the news or other media to begin with, they wouldn't have articles. Classifying someone by their having been newsworthy is thus unnecessary and akin to "Notable X" categories (maybe more precisely, "Recently notable X"). If you have a problem with the notability or verifiability of these articles, then please list them for deletion (and I think you'd have a good deletion argument for at least some of them), but that is not a problem to be dealt with by this kind of category. Postdlf 00:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete why should these people be grouped together anyhow? add categories to the various Mexican states from which these people hail. Carlossuarez46 22:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not that they have to be grouped together. They were already grouped as "Mexican people", with other "Mexican people". All other "Mexican people"s have already been sub-categorized for profession or whatever notable characteristic they are notable for. These people are not notable for any other fact that they ahve been in the news. It would be really simple to sub-categorize them by place of origin, yes... but let's remember that the lives of these people is not very relevant, if at all except for a single event (or group of events) that made them notable enough to be in the news. There is no (verifiable) information on place of birth for any of them. Only two we know lived in Oaxaca at a certain point, but that's it. --Vizcarra 23:00, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once again, these are sound rationales for deleting the articles, but not for creating this category, which doesn't solve those problems anyway. Postdlf 00:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Another comment, at least one of the articles is categorized by Category:Serial killers, which is becoming subdivided by nationality, so eventually there may be Category:Mexican serial killers. Postdlf 15:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Abögarp 00:27, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not something to copy for other countries. Wikipedia should focus on permanent information, not passing events. Everyone can be categorised in a better way then this - just dig around to discover the options.Choalbaton 19:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Pavel Vozenilek 21:27, 4 February 2006 (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 15:11, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More encyclopedic title for category. -- Longhair 02:38, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to standard form. CalJW 03:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Pureblade | ^Θ 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - N (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as player categories are being simplified into only five: Category:West Ham United F.C. goalkeepers, Category:West Ham United F.C. defenders, Category:West Ham United F.C. midfielders, Category:West Ham United F.C. forwards and Category:West Ham United F.C. players that never played for the 1st team. This is as opposed to the originally conceived twenty or so categories. This is because this is now seen by this user, who created them originally, that they are overly complex and unneccessary. Any deeper positional information should clearly be found in player biogs. Apologies for this Newbie behaviour. ;-) Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:31, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 14:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Spyrides 02:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all If you want to nominate a group of categories again please do an umbrella nomination as described in section III of "How to use this page". CalJW 04:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom - N (talk) 18:12, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per CalJW. - Pureblade | ^Θ 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too specific - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Elisson • Talk 22:03, 30 January 2006 (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 reverse merge --Kbdank71 14:56, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate cats. Mais oui! 02:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as proposed. - N (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I see the logic of the proposal below, Valiantis raises some good points. That solution seems sensible to me, so I therefore move to Reverse merge. - N (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge. Category:Celts has far more articles and subcats; the name is also more inclusive. "Celtic peoples" suggests it should only hold articles about separate "Celtic" peoples (e.g. Gaels, Brythons); "Celts" already holds articles not about peoples. Valiantis 04:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge per Valiantis and make 'Celtic Peoples' a subcat of 'Celts' ::Supergolden:: 10:23, 2 February 2006 (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 14:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by several more specific Category:American football players by position subcategories: Category:American football long snappers, Category:American football punt returners, and so on. "Special teams" is not a position, it's a class of positions. All individuals have been moved to the more accurate subcategories.--Mike Selinker 01:35, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Except for the long snapper, all players are assigned to offensive or defensive positions (even the ones that only see the field on special teams). ×Meegs 03:48, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What about Steve Tasker and Karl Hankton? Tasker especially made a name for himself entirely on special teams, and same with Hankton... gunners are typically wide receivers or cornerbacks, and therefore should have that category as well, but there's no denying the impact of special teams on a game, and just because there's no one name given to some of these players, you cannot take away what they've done. I understand the reasoning for the CfD, but I retain some aversion to it, and therefore reserve my judgment for now until I have more time to reflect on this. Anthony 18:12, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, but to me that's more of a role than a position. For me, position is what you would find next to someone's name on a roster. Tasker's a wide receiver by position.--Mike Selinker 21:07, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Counter-point: So is long snapper. My only concern is that we're going to neglect what made these guys prominent in the first place. No one remembers Tasker as a wide receiver, even if that was his official position. No one knows who Kendall Gammon is, except that he's one of the premier long snappers in the game. Special teams is "special" for a reason, and I just don't want people to forget that. On the other hand, it is a small amount of players, so I understand why there's a CfD. Ultimately, I have to take a keep position, and it's nothing against your position, but I just feel that it's a method of categorization that best fits the players it encompasses. I'll probably get out-voted here, but I need to voice my concern, if only to have it heard. Anthony 22:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things. First, does anyone know what happened to the 15 or so players that were in there a month ago? Did you they all go into punt returners and long snappers? Second, is there something we could name the category so that it's restrictive enough to be useful, but also somewhat objective? ST Pro Bowl selections don't seem to be very representative (David Tyree and Larry Izzo this year), and players known mostly for ST play has obvious problems. ×Meegs 23:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved them into their more specialized categories (most were long snappers), before really realizing that I was denuding the category. It would be pretty easy to put them back, since my contributions log has them all right next to each other. I think if we rename the category, we should have a very narrow restriction as to who gets in it, and then it will be easy to find people who go in it. Maybe we just make a separate category for the gunners and call it a day.--Mike Selinker 06:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've got no objection to making a gunners category. At the very least it will give the remaining "special teamers" some category to call their own. Thanks Meegs for bringing this to my attention... I'm lucky I'm able to think straight at this hour. I hereby change my vote to delete. Anthony 13:09, 4 February 2006 (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 15:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested rename to remove ungrammatical apostrophe and maintain consistency with existing songs by year and albums by year/decade categories. --Muchness 01:15, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Pop songs of the 1960's to Category:1960s pop songs
• Category:Pop songs of the 1970's to Category:1970s pop songs
• Category:Pop songs of the 1980's to Category:1980s pop songs
• Category:Pop songs of the 1990's to Category:1990s pop songs
• Rename all As per nom. CalJW 04:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. - Pureblade | ^Θ 18:16, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom - • | Đܧ§§Ť | • ^{T | C} 16:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. pitty that these categories are so underpopulated. :-( Carlossuarez46 23:01, 30 January 2006 (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.