< June 20	June 22 >

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 Tim! 18:02, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a category for roller coasters so that should be in the name. Vegaswikian 00:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom, much better name. --W.marsh 02:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 14:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename, consistent with other subcats of Roller Coasters NawlinWiki 14:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redundant per Category:Music websites ~ Booya ^Bazooka 23:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 04:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Cars of Serbia -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agree in principle, though it would be wise to check there are no Montenegrin ones first. If there are, a new Category:Cars of Montenegro may also be required. Grutness...wha? 00:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Currently it contains only Zastava models, which are all Serbian. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. Conscious 06:17, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Premature, its sole member is also the sole member of Category:Elementary schools in Iowa -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak Keep. The school is now only listed in the city article, which is where it should be listed if there are two categories. I'd leave both of these since they will get a few more over time. Vegaswikian 00:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Too specific. Even New York and Chicago don't have categories for elementary schools. Rename to Category:Education in Iowa City and reparent to Category:Education by city and Category:Education in Iowa. - EurekaLott 13:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Category Redirect --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See: Category:GNU project -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Redirect to Category:GNU project per 70.51.8.5 below. David Kernow 00:49, 22 June 2006 (UTC), amended 20:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• categoryredirect to proper cat. 70.51.8.5 16:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Expand abbrevs -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Against. ARCA is an acronym that is rarely, if ever, expanded. Most ARCA fans don't know what it stands for, similarly to LASER or RADAR. BoojiBoy 23:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Don't Rename, we already had this discussion here. Recury 00:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. I've been pondering this for a while and now think expanding abbreviations in category names makes scanning the category listings at the bottoms of pages less than straightforward. Discovering what an abbreviation in a category name means takes only one or two clicks, which I don't believe is inconvenient – especially when using tabbed browsers such as Firefox, which seem to be more and more popular (anyone's money on the next version of Internet Explorer featuring tabbed browsing?). With this in mind, I've rephrased the explanatory sentence on the category's page. Regards, David Kernow 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PS If of concern, see this proposed amendment.  David 15:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep in this case, as there is precedent for ARCA, and we previously agreed that "branded" faux acronyms didn't need to be expanded. I use FireFox, and I only use the tabs to keep main and talk and history and what links here together, with a separate window for each page. --William Allen Simpson 02:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Premature ... not even a cat for attendees yet, much less subcats for nationalities. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• In that case, the obvious thing to do would be rename to Category:Bilderberg attendees and populate. I'm not sure that's a good idea though - how significant is attendence? I imagaine that the status and activities of attendees outside the meetingss are more important than this, but I'm not an expert. SeventyThree^(Talk) 09:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Conspiracy theory stuff that doesn't merit categorisation. Osomec 14:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We have an article on the Bilderberg group and this in not a conspiracy theory. The theories only concern the actual purpose of the group. User:Dimadick
• Delete Only conspiracy theorists would call attending a Bilderberg meeting a defining characteristic. CalJW 07:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 (empty), is actually a list, not used as a category --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a category, should be listified -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete after converting to List of United States Navy SEALs. (Category:United States Navy SEALs already exists.)  David Kernow 00:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC), amended 15:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and do not listify. The category and a few examples in the main article will suffice. Osomec 14:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorycruft. If every "best of" list had its own category than the list of cats for movies like Citizen Kane and On the Waterfront would be longer than the articles themselves. I don't think it's worthy of listifying either due to possible copyvio and WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information. BoojiBoy 21:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. Television show lists do not deserve categories. --Musicpvm 22:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and listify, as are all the lists in Category:AFI 100 Years series. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 14:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies. List was created on 2 June 2006; nominated for deletion 18 hours before the category was nominated. -- Jonel | Speak 02:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Half the nom was because it's a category. It's much more useful as a category. --Rory096 02:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Read the nomination reason above to understand why it cannot be a category. --JeffW 03:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and do not listify, as it would very probably just be a bare list. Oh yeah, it IS a bare list that's being considered for deletion. I'd be fine with a list that gave info e.g. year, director, country etc. Reminds me of a 50 funniest people list/cat from a while back, just leads to clutter. Deizio talk 02:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and merely mention/reference in articles where considered appropriate for them. This is not a noteworthy category. -- nae'blis _(talk) 04:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: First the template was up for deletion, now the category that is attached to the template is up for deletion. Also the list is up for deletion. All should be kept, if just to show one of the most hated comedy film lists of all time. Even I didn't agree with it, and I created the template and category. Lists are all fine and well, but I didn't think that this list deserved a list on here. Just slap the category at the bottom of the page and be done with it. Categories are at the end of the article, so the least important part of it. Let the category stand and delete the list instead. Also, if the category is deleted, then the template will automatically create a redlink category. Its not like this category has only 2 or 3 items in it, it has 100 items. Let it stand, and delistify other top 100 lists and make them all categories that can be dismissed easily by the reader. The whole idea of this was to give some of these films at least one "award" which they would not have gotten otherwise.
  —Lady Aleena talk/contribs 19:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • And when categories for Bravo's 100 Best Movies, A&E's 100 Best Musicals, and the best list for every movie critic in the country all get categories, the articles for the movies generally considered the best will have more lines devoted to the categories that they're in then article text. I don't have a problem including notable best lists but they need to be lists not categories. --JeffW 22:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Categories do not require maintenance. Lists do. Categories are easier to do, so there could be hundred of categories such as this which take no maintenance. Categories can be slapped on the tail end of articles. Lists require more typing instead of an easy copy-n-paste of the same info on however many articles are in the category. Keep categories over lists, as they are much easier to maintain and add to.
    —Lady Aleena talk/contribs 01:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Again, "If every "best of" list had its own category than the list of cats for movies like Citizen Kane and On the Waterfront would be longer than the articles themselves." Do you have any idea how many best-of lists are out there? If the information is to be kept it should be in a list, not a category. BoojiBoy 01:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • To address Lady Aleena's points, this particular subject isn't going to change, or at least I'm assuming if Bravo comes out with another list on the same subject it would be called Bravo's 100 Funniest Movies, 2008, so there is no maintenance issue. On the other hand if Bravo came out with another list and you wanted to update the current list then the maintenance is exactly the same for the category as it would be for a list. Another issue that no one has mentioned is that the order of the list is one of, if not the most, important aspects of the list yet the category has the movies in alphabetical order
• Delete -- non-notable category; further, creating such a grouping is likely a copyvio, as it is based on a list created by a business (NBC-Universal) -- hence such a list is copyrighted.--Leflyman^Talk 00:12, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. CalJW 07:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: Just FYI, to those who say to listify this, the list has been deleted! -LA @ 18:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Delete If it isn't notable enough to be a list it definitely isn't notable enough to be a category. --JeffW 23:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 (empty), is actually a list, not used as a category --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not a category, should be listified -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Chicheley 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Listify per nom. David Kernow 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC), withdrawn 01:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete and do not listify. Just mention in context in relevant articles, which is no doubt already done. Osomec 14:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete I think this has been deleted before, perhaps under a different name. CalJW 07:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep as a category (under some name); make as a list also (under some name) as there are probably people in the list who do not have their own bio articles. Maybe as part of a more general list and category of 'People against the Iraq War' and 'American people against the Iraq War' Matches similar existing 'people against' lists and categories. Thanks Hmains 00:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 (see also June 22) --William Allen Simpson 05:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moved from speedy after objections. Vegaswikian 21:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be deleted or withdrawn as I nominated this for outright deletion instead. I don't want to remove this in case it's somehow vandalism to remove it. — Nathan ^(talk) 06:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Capitalization, per Global city article - Powers 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose speedy - take this to full CFD page: it ought to be Deleted. --Mais oui! 19:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose speedy - should be deleted on CFD. It is used on many cities not listed as "world cities". Besides, that term is subjective. Should be Deleted Valentinian ^(talk) 20:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, POV category. --Musicpvm 21:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: what about the "Globalization and World Cities Study Group and Network" definitions? Are those sufficient to make the category NPOV? Powers 21:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Er... a minor research unit "based primarily at Loughborough University": Nope! --Mais oui! 21:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete as subjective. The studies are not authoritative. Chicheley 22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete. With apologies to those from Denmark, if Aarhus is in a qualitative category with London, the category is meaningless.--Mike Selinker 23:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Current meaning of term is inherently POV. Delete until such time that cities are found on other planets, then this one might be useful. Grutness...wha? 00:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete POV. Osomec 14:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per Grutness. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:23, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Catholic ecumenical and interfaith relations. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 00:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. Conscious 17:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge -- Recent creation includes just two writers that happen to travel a lot. Confusingly named with the ethic group Travellers. --William Allen Simpson 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Not sure if either of the two people whose articles currently populate the article are known as writers...?  David Kernow 01:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose The articles do not state that these two people were travel writers. Osomec 14:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete as its two members better categorized elsewhere. David Kernow 15:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. Conscious 17:47, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should be merged, as the category should be consistent with its parent categories (Category:African American musicians, Category:African Americans) and the African American article which all do not have hyphens. --Musicpvm 18:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose We should be going the other way and adding hyphens to the ethnic categories where they are missing. Osomec 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The associated userbox as been userfied per the German solution - but we really don't want (or need) a category of wikipedians who don't speak american english. Divisive - inflammetory etc...--Aoratos 17:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support Divisive, inflamatory, does not help edit an encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - the category is neither devisive nor inflamatory. It is however pointless. Thryduulf 12:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. Conscious 17:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just an awkward name. It is usually referred to as either "Rally racing" or simply "Rallying." Either is OK with me. Now that I think about it, there are other types of events called "rallies" that are not races per se and have nothing to do with what is in this category (see regularity rally), so I suggest "Rally racing." Recury 17:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support category:Rally racing. There's also the distinction that not all of them are in cars. The Game (treasure hunt) is done in vans, Race In The City is done by public transport, and Table-Top Rallying is done at home, but they're all rallies and they're all races.--Mike Selinker 18:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oops, I assumed everything in the category was at least similar to the kind of rallying done in the World Rally Championship, off-road, point-to-point races like the kind describe at the rallying article; the articles you mention are the kind I was looking to keep seperate. I guess this article needs to be split into Category:Rally racing and Category:Road rallying, since that's what the second kind appears to be called. Recury 01:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I don't know. It sounds like too fine a distinction. They all have similar features: vehicles, checkpoints, speed. (Well, the tabletop one has implied vehicles.) So I think that they should all stay in one category, just one with a more inclusive name.--Mike Selinker 03:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes, you'll find that most types of racing have vehicles, checkpoints and speed. But as far as types of racing go, they are pretty different. They need to be split. Recury 15:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Sorry, I just don't see it. Let's agree that the current category has to be renamed as you originally proposed, and then you can make a new category and move some articles as you like.--Mike Selinker 18:11, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Support category:Rally racing. A split is needed, the first is all about speed, control (sometimes speed control), and navagation. The second has the transportation secondary to the puzzles. Dimitrii 13:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 01:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:22, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:National Hockey League goaltenders. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. No time-based categories for athletes by position or team.--Mike Selinker 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge. I'm embarrassed I didn't catch this already. BoojiBoy 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge both per above. - EurekaLott 13:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support - I made both categories originally as an attempt to sort (eventually all) players by position, but since it never took hold, I support merging them into the 1 category. Hazelorb 00:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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; I'll simply reverse the category redirect and let the cat redirect bot handle the articles. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to include hyphen; this is apparently proper usage. Other categories with "non-fiction" in the title are all hyphenated. MakeRocketGoNow 17:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support -- main Category:Non-fiction and main article was renamed to Non-fiction nearly two years ago. --William Allen Simpson 19:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 22:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 14:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom - no brainer really - gains consistency. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support isn't there already a category with the hyphen? Maestlin 17:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. The category with a hyphen is a category redirect to the one without a hyphen, which should be reversed. --JeffW 22:17, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Lady Aleena 20:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete - This is a contradiction in terms- If it's nonfiction, they aren't "characters," are they? MakeRocketGoNow 17:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. Cat doesn't make sense. --Musicpvm 17:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. You call this a cameo appearance usually. - TheDJ (talk • contribs • WikiProject Television) 03:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Lady Aleena 20:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge into Category:Punjabi people. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 01:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Category Redirect as with Category:Detroiters below. See the recent change to Wikipedia:Categorization of people, redirect demonyms to "People from ..." form. --William Allen Simpson 08:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Judging from similar categories on American cities, this is the standard usage. User:Arual 16:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. Osomec 14:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment: if the consensus is to rename the category, please do so without the state name. The state name is only used when disambiguation is necessary, and there are no other major cities named Denver. - EurekaLott 15:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thanks for amending the nomination. - EurekaLott 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Redirect to Category:Internet advertising and promotion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge or delete, as its only article Geary Interactive seems more like an advertisement than an article...?  David Kernow 01:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete or merge, hardly matters and it turns out that the category and article are just the work of a spammer - their sole contribution has been adding obviously inappropriate promotional links and making promotional ad "articles" for non-notable companies. And there's more from them in CFD too - see above, and "Motivational Speakers of the United States". TheGrappler 05:19, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete This is being used wholly for the purpose of advertising. Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Geary_Interactive. -- Alias Flood 02:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For consistency with article at Exeter - there are no other categories for places called Exeter. — sjorford++ 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Support. Unlike in the USA, "place,county" naming is not standard in the UK. Thryduulf 12:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 14:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. Thanks to eBay's forced-US-style address fields, all packages I get from eBay are addressed to "Helsinki, Uusimaa, Finland". Just "Helsinki" will do fine in Finland, and pretty much everywhere else in Europe, too. Some USAns apparently have trouble understanding the idea of a nation not made up from autonomous states. JIP | Talk 10:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Category Redirect --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Biographical films. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• DeleteRedirect after moving its 1 item to Category:Biographical films. I was under the impression one could not redirect a category. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • See Category:Bicyclists for an example. It shows people where to go, so that at it doesn't get created again... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• ((categorydirect)) seems to be what's used, although it doesn't prevent people adding articles to the category. Regards, David Kernow 01:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

((categoryredirect)), I believe. Close enough :) SeventyThree^(Talk) 09:07, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops - thanks!  David Kernow 15:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Convert to redirect per nom. David Kernow 01:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To match other members of Category:Geographical WikiProjects -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. David Kernow 01:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just used by Hephaestos impersonators for a little bit of immature fun, and I doubt Hephaestos would run sockpuppets. --Deathphoenix ʕ 15:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (Yes, I'm aware that this category is autocreated with ((sockpuppet)), but Hephisis made an edit to the category so it's no longer a redlink). --Deathphoenix ʕ 16:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For deletion. Articles about individual characters in opera would fragment coverage to an extraordinary extent. (At present we only have one article on an opera (among about 500) which is over 30k.) - Kleinzach 15:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. The parent Category (Category:Theatre characters) is very thinly populated, with the solitary exception of Shakespearean characters. There is little or nothing to be said about most operatic characters that can't be said in the article about the opera in which they appear. --GuillaumeTell 21:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To match other members of Category:Performers by record label -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename to Category:Tommy Boy Records artists which matches Category:Arista Records musicians, Category:Heavenly Records artists and the like. At first I thought this had something to do with Tommy Boy.-choster 19:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per choster -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Category:Airports by country is good enough. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Airports in South America -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename This is the natural parent for the stub category of Category:South American airport stubs which won't be disappearing anytime soon. Thanks for pointing this one out. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename Airports in South America in line with policy for categories of buildings and structures. Calsicol 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Calsicol is correct; I've ammended the nomination. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete or rename to Category:Airports in South America per above. David Kernow 01:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per Caerwine and Calsicol. Thryduulf

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 Tim! 18:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Category:Airports by country is good enough. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Airports in Europe. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename This is the natural parent for the stub category of Category:European airport stubs which won't be disappearing anytime soon. Thanks for pointing this one out. Caerwine Caerwhine 14:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename Airports in Europe in line with policy for categories of buildings and structures. Calsicol 15:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment I generally prefer not to categorize by continent. For many of us, the line between Europe and Asia is not all that clear. And Turkey goes in both. I have to stop and look it up where Kazakhstan is supposed to go. However, if we go by country or nation, then its easy to find. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no issue adding by country categories. If someone does this, the nomination here can become a Delete. Vegaswikian 19:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment Calsicol is correct; I've ammended the nomination. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete or rename to Category:Airports in Europe per above. David Kernow 01:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought we decided not to do these -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. We did, but it's not surprising that it was recreated. I alerted the creator, User:Lcarsdata, who appears to be a pretty impressive 13-year-old.--Mike Selinker 14:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Not technically a recreation. The bunch of them were submitted to CFD on Jone 13, closed on the 21st, and deleted since them. This one, which has a slightly different capitalization, was created on the 15th, well before the debate was closed. That being said, this one still should go away. Delete. - TexasAndroid 17:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 10:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 (empty) --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For deletion. Redundant opera category. Doesn't correspond to any recognized genre. - Kleinzach 13:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This category's subcats have been depopulated and replaced by categories styled Collections of the Foo Museum, per the CfD for Category:Works in the Louvre. All that remains is for them to be deleted. The parent category is also redundant because of Category:Museum collections. HAM 11:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, per nom - redundant by Category:Museum collections. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:Kingston → Category:Kingston upon Thames
• Category:Richmond → Category:Richmond upon Thames

Rename both, for consistency with their articles, and to avoid ambiguity. — sjorford++ 10:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename both to avoid ambiguity. Both Kingston and Richmond are disambig pages. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename both. David Kernow 13:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename both, per nom.--cjllw | TALK 13:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only one title was in this sub-category, moved to parent and nominating this as a currently unnecessary sub-category for this novel genre type. This is the only the second sub-category by novel, by genre, by year (also by the same editor) and I know of no formal proposal for such as this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 08:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep - none of the reasons given are valid for deletion:

• "Only one title was in this sub-category" - irrelevant (see Category:English popes, which easily survived CFD)
• "only the second sub-category by novel, by genre, by year" - so...?

So it is unneeded, the "year" novels is only recently being established. The novel in question is already in "year" novels and already in "Mystery" novels categories. This pattern is in use by many, maybe even hundreds of novel articles now. Why have a "rouge" couple of articles? Surely categorization should have consistency of approach and style. Otherwise the gain in having them is likely to be dissipated. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "by the same editor" - err... and... ?

Ok that was no reason - quite agree. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "I know of no formal proposal" - that is because there is no such thing as a method of "formally proposing" new cats: Wikipedia ain't big on bureaucracy

Wikipedia ain't big on bureaucracy! - in the world of templates and stub notices certainly it is!. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now, if the nominator can provide some better reasons I may reconsider... (eg. "Mystery novel" is not a very clear criterion?)

--Mais oui! 14:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - by the way: you are not allowed to empty cats prior to CFD decision, so please put the relevant article back in in the meantime. --Mais oui! 14:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Returned as requested - I didn't know that - Where does the guidance say that. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. The convention in the novel categories is not to categorize sub-cats by year. The creation of the category was not part of an overall affort to start doing so; it was one of a couple of seemingly cursory additions. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete, Category:1965 novels is good enough. Each year does not need to be divided into genre subcats again. That's too much. --Musicpvm 17:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete bad level of granularity TheGrappler 04:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 14:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should conform with the way WP:AWNB proposed for naming of association football categories and articles (here and here). As seen in Category:Football (soccer) in Australia, almost all categories and articles now follow this convention, this is one of the few remaining. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 07:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Speedy rename (this isn't one of the criteria specifically, but I don't think there should be a problem in this case). Nominator. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 07:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename. Better fit for naming conventions. Good catch. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename. This might not be the best place to ask this, but I notice MCG is in this cat, even though it is not a rectangular stadium. Should this include venues that are designed for football (soccer), or venues that are capable of hosting football (soccer) games? -- Chuq 00:57, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment. Good catch. I think the category is for stadiums which have hosted a football/soccer match even if they aren't used regularly. The WACA, Subiaco and (possibly) Telstra Stadium would also fall into the category of not-designed-for by used for soccer. I'm split as to whether this should be changed for only those designed for the specific sport... AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 02:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename. I think the category should include grounds which have hosted soccer games. (Anyway, Telstra Stadium was definitely designed with soccer and both rugby codes in mind.) JPD (talk) 10:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename with scope as per JPD above. Ansell 00:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Rename football isn't just reserved for soccer. sliat_1981

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 Tim! 18:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Similar categories don't include Summer or Winter and they don't capitalize any but the first word of the sport. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Rename, for consistency. (nb - all articles in category that use Field Hockey (about 5 of them) should also be renamed). – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per above and (speedy) lowercase subcategories per AlbinoMonkey. ((Olympic Games Hockey)) and main article Field Hockey at the Summer Olympics would also need attention. David Kernow 13:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other event categories for the Summer Olympics all use the X at the Olympics format. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Rename, for consistency. – AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename for consistency. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per all above. David Kernow 13:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. Conscious 17:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The other event categories for the Summer Olympics all use the X at the Olympics format. Caerwine Caerwhine 06:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC).Reply[reply]

• Rename, for consistency. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 11:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename Merge both into Category:Football (soccer) at the Olympics. I know that there is no other code of football at the Olympics, but it would match other naming conventions regarding the various football codeson Wikipedia. Consistency, even if it is a bit OCD, is a good thing. That being said, even if my proposal is rejected, I still would support a rename per nom. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename to Category:Football (soccer) at the Olympics per youngamerican. David Kernow 13:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment No objection to adding the (parenthesis). However, if done, then the category that I proposed merging to needs to be merged as well. I nominated this and the two above based on the Olympic aspect of the category names.
• Rename as proposed. I don't call soccer "football" myself, but that is its official name at the Olympics, so it should be used here. JPD (talk) 10:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename as proposed; I'm ambivalent about the parenthetical. Seeing as how American football was played as a demonstration sport at the 1904 Summer Olympics (and by "played as a demonstration sport", I mean that James Edward Sullivan [need to write that article one of these days...] called pretty much every sporting contest in Missouri in 1904 "Olympic", including both high school and college American football games), clarity would probably be best. While we're at it, here are a few subcats of Category:Football (soccer) competitions that don't have the parenthetical. Whether they should be renamed or just recategorized to Category:Football competitions and expanded in scope, I don't know. -- Jonel | Speak 02:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Category:International football competitions

  Category:International national football competitions

  Category:International national football competitions (defunct)

  Category:International club football competitions

  Category:International club football competitions (defunct)

• If the football they address is soccer, "football"→"football (soccer)" seems to be accepted disambiguation. I'll tag and nominate them if no-one else has by the time I wander past here again. Regards, David Kernow 14:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC), amended 00:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 18:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Consistent with the majotity of ethnicity categories for Australia, the following should be renamed to exclude the hyphen.--Peta 05:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:Brazilian-Australians
• Category:Iranian-Australians
• Category:Nigerian-Australians
• Category:Dutch-Australians
• Category:New Zealand-Australians
• Category:American-Australians
• Category:Algerian-Australians
• Category:Jamaican-Australians
• Category:Ukrainian-Australians
• Category:English-Australians
• Category:Sicilian-Australians
• Category:Italian-Australians
• Category:Maltese-Australians
• Category:French-Australians
• Category:Welsh-Australians

• Rename per nom. JPD (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 19:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A more simple Category:Cypriot Australians would serve the same purpose and maintain consistency in naming.--Peta 05:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nom. JPD (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is a subcat of Category:Australian people by ethnic or national origin of little use.--Peta 05:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. JPD (talk) 10:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Delete per nom. CalJW 07:38, 24 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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. --RobertG ♬ talk 15:53, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For consistency with its parent, Category:Abortion case law, and sibling, Category:Canadian abortion case law. GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename, as nom, for consistency. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. -Severa (!!!) 05:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename for consistency and to take the little tinge of pov out of the name. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. romarin [talk ] 15:07, 25 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 per revised proposal. Conscious 17:56, 1 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are four British field hockey categories that add parenthesis to the field which should be removed to match the other field hockey categories.

• category:(Field) hockey in the United Kingdom to category:Field hockey in the United Kingdom
• category:American (field) hockey players to category:American field hockey players
• category:Argentine (field) hockey players to category:Argentine field hockey players
• category:Armenian (field) hockey players to category:Armenian field hockey players
• category:Australian (field) hockey players to category:Australian field hockey players
• category:Belgian (field) hockey players to category:Belgian field hockey players
• category:British (field) hockey players to category:British field hockey players
• category:Canadian (field) hockey players to category:Canadian field hockey players
• category:Catalan (field) hockey players to category:Catalan field hockey players
• category:Chilean (field) hockey players to category:Chilean field hockey players
• category:Dutch (field) hockey players to category:Dutch field hockey players
• category:English (field) hockey players to category:English field hockey players
• category:German (field) hockey players to category:German field hockey players
• category:Indian (field) hockey players to category:Indian field hockey players
• category:Irish (field) hockey players to category:Irish field hockey players
• category:Japanese (field) hockey players to category:Japanese field hockey players
• category:New Zealand (field) hockey players to category:New Zealand field hockey players
• category:Pakistani (field) hockey players to category:Pakistani field hockey players
• category:Russian (field) hockey players to category:Russian field hockey players
• category:Scottish (field) hockey players to category:Scottish field hockey players
• category:South African (field) hockey players to category:South African field hockey players
• category:South Korean (field) hockey players to category:South Korean field hockey players
• category:Spanish (field) hockey players to category:Spanish field hockey players
• category:Zimbabwean (field) hockey players to category:Zimbabwean field hockey players

*category:Women's field hockey to category:Female field hockey players

• Rename to eliminate the (parenthesis) Caerwine Caerwhine 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment. All the subcategories of category:Field hockey players use the (field) parenthetical. I think they shouldn't, but I remember some people vociferously assert that the sport is called hockey. This is a battle that in the real world, field hockey players have lost; see the official site of US Field Hockey. But you never know on WIkipedia. I say rename and damn the torpedoes.--Mike Selinker 04:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support extending this to the other subcategories of category:Field hockey players as well, I just hadn't noticed them. Caerwine Caerwhine

Okay. I tagged them all and changed your nomination accordingly.--Mike Selinker 15:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• To me hockey is played on ice and that's it, but I respect those who disagree. All Wikipedia articles should have the disambiguation. Rename per nom. BoojiBoy 13:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all except category:Women's field hockey since that category is about more than players. Wouldn't mind creating a gender specific category for female players, tho I note there does not seem to be any consistency about what to name them, judging by the categories that are in Category:Women sportspeople by sport. Caerwine Caerwhine 18:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Good point. I'm removing it from the deletion debate, and we can create a subcategory called category:Women's field hockey players for the women in it.--Mike Selinker 18:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• COMMENT how the hell did Canada get a parenthesis set for field? In Canada hockey is on ice. 132.205.45.148 19:48, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment, as the Hockey article says, the most popular form of the game in each country is known as just "hockey" with other forms taking a descriptor. Here in the UK, hockey is played on grass (or astroturf), the form on ice is known as ice hockey. Thryduulf 21:29, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Sure, but no one's suggesting any of the ice hockey articles be named "hockey" (except as in National Hockey League and other titles). It is better to agree that both sports need an unequivocal differentiator.--Mike Selinker 03:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Category Redirect both to Category:People from Detroit. See the recent change to Wikipedia:Categorization of people, redirect demonyms to "People from ..." form. --William Allen Simpson 08:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed shorter name would be consistent with categories for people from other major U.S. cities, e.g., Category:Bostonians, Category:Chicagoans, Category:Cincinnatians, Category:Clevelanders, Category:Miamians, etc. Kestenbaum 04:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose Why Detroiters and not Detroitians? Frankly, I'd be more comfortable with switching the examples you gave to the Category:People from ... convention. I could see a rename to a simple Category:People from Detroit since Detroit is a sufficiently well known city. Caerwine Caerwhine 04:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. "Detroiter" is standard usage; I have never heard of a "Detroitian". Kestenbaum 04:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Further comment. The fight over demonyms for city resident categories (Chicagoans, Atlantans, etc.) occurred a year ago. I can't find any more recent CfD on the subject, but maybe I'm not looking in the right places. Kestenbaum 04:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still another comment. The demonym model is also used for non-U.S. major cities, e.g., Category:Londoners, Category:Parisians, Category:Berliners, Category:Muscovites, etc. Kestenbaum 05:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose All the others should be changed to "People from ..." so people from the other half of the world don't have to know which form is used by the natives. --JeffW 04:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. I sympathize with the nom's intentions, but I must agree with Caerwine. It should be the Category:Fooians and Category:Fooers changed to Category:People from Foo for the sake of consitency. Anyways, aren't Berliners a type of donut? :) youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 12:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename per nom. I'm from about two hours from Detroit and "Detroiter" is standard usage. I have no preference over the use of demonyms but they should be standardized one way or the other. BoojiBoy 13:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose They should all be "people from". Calsicol 15:42, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Agreed that categories for smaller places should be "people from". But I doubt you'd get very far trying to change Category:Bostonians or Category:Parisians. Demonyms are already tolerated for dozens of important cities -- and isn't Detroit an important city? Perhaps we need a definition of "important city" as a lower bound for using a demonym. For example Category:Marshallites refers to people from Marshall, Texas -- who would have guessed? Kestenbaum 17:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename per nom. If other major cities are allowed to use demonyms, why shouldn't Detroit? It is one of the largest cities in the U.S. (larger than several of the ones mentioned above), and "Detroiters" is a correct term. --Musicpvm 17:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Some Data. Here's the Google hit counts for demonyms currently used as titles for categories of U.S. city residents, from Category:People by American city. Of course, some city-resident categories may not be listed there. Interesting to note that the list does not correlate as well to city population as you might expect. Obviously my argument is that high ranking (widely used) demonyms are legitimate category titles. Kestenbaum 20:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

[begin data list]

Google hits for demonym; link to category with demonym name

• 809,000 Category:Chicagoans
• 780,000 Category:Bostonians
• 690,000 Category:San Franciscans
• 458,000 Category:Milwaukeeans
• 320,000 Category:New Orleanians
• 288,000 Category:Houstonians
• 258,000 Category:Detroiters
• 225,000 Category:Austinites
• 224,000 Category:San Diegans
• 194,000 Category:Atlantans
• 169,000 Category:Seattleites
• 158,000 Category:Manhattanites
• 152,000 Category:Portlanders
• 147,000 Category:Memphians
• 117,000 Category:Clevelanders
• 114,000 Category:St. Louisans
• 80,500 Category:Tucsonans
• 76,300 Category:Cincinnatians
• 56,800 Category:Nashvillians
• 54,500 Category:Kansas Citians
• 54,200 Category:Las Vegans
• 48,700 Category:Richmonders (Virginia)
• 47,900 Category:Denverites
• 47,500 Category:Phoenicians (Arizona)
• 42,600 Category:El Pasoans
• 38,600 Category:Miamians
• 31,100 Category:Charlotteans
• 28,700 Category:Sacramentans
• 28,100 Category:Wichitans
• 24,600 Category:Oaklanders
• 21,700 Category:Louisvillians
• 21,100 Category:Rochesterians
• 19,700 Category:Mobilians
• 16,400 Category:Savannahians
• 14,900 Category:Minneapolitans
• 13,500 Category:Knoxvillians
• 13,400 Category:Lexingtonians
• 13,400 Category:Santa Monicans
• 11,400 Category:Daytonians
• 11,300 Category:Berkeleyans
• 10,700 Category:Little Rockers
• 9,250 Category:Ann Arborites
• 3,940 Category:Schenectadians
• 2,980 Category:Amarilloans
• 1,630 Category:Orlandoans
• 1,620 Category:Saratogians
• 1,130 Category:Jacksonvillians
• 955 Category:Fresnans
• 951 Category:Bakersfieldians
• 829 Category:Newarkers
• 792 Category:Saint Paulites (includes "St. Paulites")
• 782 Category:Pasadenans
• 779 Category:Tampans
• 771 Category:Spokanites
• 756 Category:Marshallites
• 640 Category:San Joseans
• 608 Category:Yonkersites
• 583 Category:Lubbockites
• 570 Category:Montgomerians
• 542 Category:Huntsvillians
• 534 Category:Indianapolitans
• 520 Category:Akronites
• 452 Category:Honolulans
• 355 Category:Albuquerquians
• 353 Category:Ypsilantians
• 177 Category:Fort Lauderdalians
• 65 Category:Newburghians
• 33 Category:Duluthans (but "Duluthians" has 821)

[end data list; signature above]

The problem is that demonyms are well-known only by the people who use them on a regular basis. Since I don't deal with Detroit much, I'd have no idea which is the correct one. Some cities don't even have a consensus on demonym. For example, Google returns about 70,000 hits for Baltimorean and 18,000 for Baltimoron. (Yes, I know that Baltimoron is usually used for humorous effect, my mom is a Baltimoron herself.) Then there is the potential for confusion in some of these. The eponym Austinian is used to describe a branch of legal philosophy, so if we ever wanted a category for Austinians, it would likely get swamped by misplaced entries of Austinites if we keep using demonyms when they aren't required. Finally, categories of a similar type should follow a uniform pattern for ease of use. As you've already pointed out, once we get past the well know cities, to places such as Duluth, ease of use goes out the window for demonyms. Anyway, it looks like this nomination will founder on the shoals of no consensus. Caerwine Caerwhine 23:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose but add a category redirect for the demonym, because we're aiming for global readership. The redirect approach seems to work fine for Category:New Yorkers. --Mereda 11:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose If anyone nominates the London, New York or Paris categories for renaming I will support it. Osomec 14:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename. The intro of Detroit, Michigan (third paragraph) mentions that people from Detroit call themselves "Detroiters"; accordingly, the category for people from Detroit should be renamed to reflect this information. Rothesay 20:40, 22 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category redirect -- as usual, Kestenbaum makes a good argument backed up by data. Obviously, there is considerable inconsistency in treatment:
  • In this case, Detroiters should be redirected. It has been created and speedy deleted twice so far this year.
  1. Category:Toledoans was renamed to Category:People from Toledo, Ohio
  2. Category:Buffaloans was renamed to Category:People from Buffalo, New York
  3. Category:Natives of London was renamed to Category:Londoners.
     • Category:Londoners (Canada) redirects to Category:Londoners (Ontario), yet there is no record of this decision. Rather unfair, as there are quite a few Londons in Canada.
  4. Category:Dubliners (city) recently renamed/merged to Category:People from Dublin.
  5. Category:People from Brooklyn recently renamed/merged 2 days later to Category:Brooklynites. I'd never heard of "Brooklynites", Brooklyn, New York is merely a former minor town that is now a large borough of a large city, and most of the US thinks of them all as "New Yorkers". There are other Brooklyns all over the world. By what stretch of the imagination is Brooklyn more globally recognizable than Dublin?
  6. Category:New Yorkers is redirected to Category:People from New York, yet there is no record of this decision.
  7. Category:Natives of Paris is redirected to Category:Parisians, yet there is no record of this decision.
     • Both Category:Population of Paris and Category:People of Paris were deleted.
  8. Category:Tokyoites was deleted in favor of Category:People from Tokyo.
  9. Category:Viennese was deleted in favor of Category:Natives of Vienna.
  • Therefore, for consistency and ease of administration, I support using the ((category redirect)) from the demonym to the "People from ..." form.
  • I'd like to emphasize "globally well-known" and "unqualified city name". There's just no reason to have every disambiguated London in the world as a redirect somewhere.

  --William Allen Simpson 04:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Question. Okay, but does this mean I need to submit a new nomination to rename Category:People from Detroit, Michigan to Category:People from Detroit? In some of the other discussions of category renaming, including the current one about Category:Denverites, it's stated that the state name should be included only for purposes of disambiguation, which is plainly unnecessary here. Kestenbaum 05:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it should be, as you are correct about the qualifier, and we have precedent there with New York. --William Allen Simpson 05:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose It has been made clear to me that several people count the residents of a Category:Foo's suburban areas as being Category:Fooers. On that basis, I think that the slightly more inclusive title "People from Detroit" or "People from Detroit, Michigan" would be more useful. As is already done in the People from the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex area category, a subcategory for people who are from the city of Detroit proper could very easily be named "Detroiters". And a redirect for all of the city-specific names, like Denverites and El Pasoans and Detroiters, could easily be added if the name is changed. One person's opinion, anyway. Badbilltucker 23:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Maybe it's because of the peculiar alienation between the city of Detroit and surrounding areas, but I would not describe someone who lives a few miles outside the city limits, with no ties to the city, as a "Detroiter" or one of the "People from Detroit". In my experience people from suburban areas such as Oakland and Macomb counties become highly offended if someone introduces them as being from "Detroit". At least in this case, if you wanted a broader geographic category, it would have to be "Metro Detroit" or "Southeast Michigan". Kestenbaum 08:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Kestenbaum's point above is well taken. However, we should all remember that very few people outside of our own specific areas know where the smaller, suburban, cities are at all, and that this often prompts people to use the less exact, but better known, name of the central main city of the area. Also, I note that several of the teams with "Detroit" in their names have or had their venues well outside the city limits. And, while I would support renaming all these categories "People from the [x] metropolitan area," I'm not sure whether anyone else would. Badbilltucker 21:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 regarding 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 Relisted, as it was forgotten or overlooked on the original day by closer Conscious (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) --William Allen Simpson 03:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subcategorize them to city and municipalities makes this cat more useful. Matt86hk talk 01:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete -- merge up to Category:Montenegrin people -- name contrary to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) -- for those places with sufficient number of people, create new categories Category:People from ... --William Allen Simpson 02:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Tim! 19:08, 30 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Only two articles in category and little prospect of it ever expanding Psychonaut3000 01:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete I agree, this seems like it will never have much use --Deville (Talk) 02:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep. Seems okay for a show and movie to have a category.--Mike Selinker 14:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per Mike Selinker. --Lady Aleena 20:09, 23 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[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 Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 19:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rename to eliminate unnecessary hyphen. MakeRocketGoNow 00:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose -- recently created by Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 19 -- main Category:Non-fiction and article is Non-fiction --William Allen Simpson 02:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - "Non-fiction" with hyphen is a perfectly normal form of the term and has already been agreed during the above debate. Nothing to be gained by further change. If this was an idea then so would "Non fiction" with no hyphen but with a space (also a usual form). Additionally "Nonfiction" is not (in my view) and normal form. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose - I worked in a library for seven years and the hyphen was universally used. BoojiBoy 13:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose per all of the above. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - Just noticed we might need to have a revisit of it's parent then Category:Nonfiction books as this has no space or hyphen. Interestingly most of the article within it that use the term have a hyphen. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose as above. Calsicol 15:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Withdraw - Gosh, didn't realize hyphens were a hot-button issue. If the hyphen is proper usage, I withdraw my cfd nomination, and instead nominate Category:Nonfiction books for renaming to Category:Non-fiction books. Currently, Category:Non-fiction books is a category redirect to Category:Nonfiction books. So it should be reversed. MakeRocketGoNow 17:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cfr added to Category:Nonfiction books, See: #Category:Nonfiction books to Category:Non-fiction books

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.