June 26
Category:Mesoamerican codices
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Mesoamerican codices to Category:Mesoamerican pictorial documents
- Nominator's rationale: The term codex, as used in the context of Mesoamerica, is kind of ill-defined. It certainly doesn't match up with the standard definition, since many of these aren't books at all. It's mostly used to describe documents in native writing systems (regardless of medium or format), but is also sometimes used for alphabetic texts. I'm proposing that the category be made specifically for the pictorial documents, with textual ones put in Category:Mesoamerican historical documents. Ptcamn 22:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep These are indeed not always standard codices, but the description of them as codices is well established, and most of them have it in their name (perversely, books that actually are codices are not normally so called in groupings). The couple of items that are text only should be moved to Category:Mesoamerican historical documents, but the pictorial ones should remain as they are. The description should be added to to clarify the specialised use of the term codex. Johnbod 01:45, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- PS Attempts (now reverted by others) by the nominator to remove the stable paragraph in codex covering these will not help his cause - rather the reverse. Johnbod 11:27, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I just thought it was bizarre for the article to say, basically, "Codices were made in Mesoamerica as late as the 16th century. Actually Mesoamerican codices aren't codices at all." The Mesoamerican codices have nothing to do with the topic of the article beyond sharing a name. They should be on the disambiguation page, not the main article, which uses the standard definition.
- Yes, pictorial documents do have "codex" in their names, but so do non-pictorial documents. We don't yet have an article on the Codex Chimalpopoca, but if we did, where would it go? In Category:Mesoamerican historical documents because it's text or in Category:Mesoamerican codices because it happens to have the word "codex" in its name? To me, either option would seem strange. --Ptcamn 10:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Like many articles, codex covers differing uses of the term in the title. I don't know the Codex Chimalpopoca. I think the pictorial/non-pictorial split is tenable, but if there are many text-only manuscripts in local languages - not Spanish - maybe these should go there too. Johnbod 16:25, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep per Johnbod. While not conforming to the normal definition of codex, it is the usual term in Mesoamerican scholarship. --Rindis 16:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep. I agree with Ptcamn that the application/definition of the term "codex" can be vague, however the term is so entrenched in Mesoamerican literature that it seems a little convoluted to avoid using it. A description on the category's page could be used to clarify the intended scope of the category, once that's fleshed out a little more.--cjllw ʘ TALK 04:33, 2 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Cities and towns in Poland
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:13, 2 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lists of films with disabled protagonists
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Lists of films with disabled protagonists to Category:Films with disabled protagonists
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - category is mis-named. In the alternative, delete as non-defining. Otto4711 19:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete. A category is not a list. Overcategorization. Doczilla 02:23, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete, "disabled" is subjective, "protagonist" is somewhat subjective, and films-by-attribute-of-character (even lead character) is non-defining. Xtifr tälk 04:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per Xtifr Dominictimms 17:41, 1 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American asses
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was speedy delete. Conscious 13:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:American asses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: :) Chetblong 18:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Speedy delete as attack category (has nothing to do with the 4-legged creature). Carlossuarez46 18:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - far too
loose broad expansive... applies to far too many Americans to be a useful category. Otto4711 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Speedy delete Alex Middleton 20:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Speedy delete , I won't say per Otto :) Johnbod 21:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Speedy delete attack category. Doczilla 01:59, 27 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Banjo-Kazooie characters
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Banjo-Kazooie characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: All the characters have been merged into List of characters in the Banjo-Kazooie series. (trogga) 18:24, 26 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Destructive cults
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Destructive cults (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - beyond the issues with the use of the word "cult" in category names, the lead article defines "destructive cult" as being one of a "small number of religious groups that have intentionally killed people, either the group members themselves or others outside of the group." This definition applies to huge numbers of religious groups, including almost every denomination of many of the world's major religions. I am cognizant of the discussion that centered around this category but in the long run this scheme isn't going to work. Otto4711 18:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - This category simply has too many POV problems. Dr. Submillimeter 19:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete Not objective. Alex Middleton 20:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per nom; also, the lead article is itself problematic, the definition given is editor-created and thus OR. - Really Spooky 21:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - POV issues. I'm sure someone could make a case for Scientology's inclusion, and then someone else would make another case against that. Categorization shouldn't be controversial, and both of these words "destructive" and "cult" are too subjective to be defining.-Andrew c 23:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete this subjective and inflammatory category per Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Cult.2C_sect. Doczilla 01:59, 27 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Green Arrow
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Green Arrow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - for all intents and purposes this is being used as a "superteam" or "supporting character" category. The articles are extensively interlinked. Otto4711 16:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - This is grouping characters by their connection to another character, which does not work in the long term. Using links in the text is more appropriate than this category. Dr. Submillimeter 17:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per nom & per Dr Sub. Carlossuarez46 18:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete as per nom. This covers a small pop of articles, and even if it were to include story arcs, interlinking would sufice. - J Greb 06:34, 27 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wives of Henry VIII
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 16:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Wives of Henry VIII (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - small category with no possibility of growth. The article Wives of Henry VIII and the extensive interlinkages between the articles suffice. Otto4711 15:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - We should not categorize people by their spouses (although it may be humorous). Dr. Submillimeter 17:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - no room for growth. And Henry VIII only really had 2 wives. Lugnuts 18:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per nom & Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep when I think of Catherine Howard, and look at the categories at the bottom of the page, I think the most notable or renown aspects of her life was that she was executed, and she was one of the wives of Henry VIII. While I understand that Henry the eighth will never marry again, I believe that that grouping of the 6 wives is one of the core things that grade schoolers learn in European history courses (on this side of the pond at least). This is more than a trivial intersection or non-notable grouping, such as The Beatles' wives.-Andrew c 01:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete small category with no room for growth. All the H8 wives are interlinked through his article. Unnecessary category. Doczilla 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Templatise - a simple template with H8 and the 6 wives would be far better than a category. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep This is the main defining category for these women. Postlebury 14:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment/Undecided: Certainly, it is generally bad to classify people by who they married. However, Henry VIII is a notable English monarch, and one of the things he is most noted for is having several wives. In general, the fact that they were married to Henry VIII is their defining characteristic. All that said, Otto4711's assertion (which I haven't looked into yet) that the interlinkages obviate the need for a category could well trump that, and is certainly the only valid reason I've seen for deleting the category I've seen yet. --Rindis 17:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep Defining characteristic. Piccadilly 17:41, 28 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:List of United States stations available in Canada
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:List of United States stations available in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, as non-defining, or at least Rename to Category:United States television stations available in Canada. See also list of United States stations available in Canada. -- Prove It (talk) 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete (preferably) or perhaps rename as per nomination. — Grstain | Talk 17:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - This really says little of interest about the TV stations, especially since TV stations can be carried by cable networks that are located far from the stations themselves (or by satellite). Dr. Submillimeter 17:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per nom & Dr. Sub. Carlossuarez46 18:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per Dr. Submillimeter. Alex Middleton 20:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rename as it's hard to find any sources online (other than Wikipedia) on which american over-the-air stations are carried on cable in Canada. I think it's useful, at least. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete: non-defining characteristic, Wikipedia is WP:NOT a television directory. Xtifr tälk 04:26, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a TV guide, and this category is less than clear. Are these stations available throughout Canada, or does it include any station that can be picked up in one house just over the border? Postlebury 14:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I meant for this to be for stations carried on cable or listed in TV guides, though over-the-air stations that are not listed could be included if you wish. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Potentially useful as a list; not valuable as a category. And even if it were kept as a category, the words "list of" never belong in a category name. Delete the cat, though keep the list. Bearcat 04:32, 1 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Best selling music artists
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:27, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Best selling music artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: These artists, although probably deserving of inclusion in such a category, can never have their claims quantified. The contentious debate on List of best-selling music artists testifies to this. Gareth E Kegg 15:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete due to unclear inclusion criteria. Best selling of all time? Or just at the moment? Or by country? Or by genre? Singles, albums, downloads, or concert ticket sales? Plus, this sort of thing really ought to have references, and categories don't work for that. -- Prove It (talk) 16:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per nom & ProveIt. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - The category is too vaguely defined. Literally, this category should contain only one person or band. Dr. Submillimeter 19:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per above. Doczilla 02:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per all above. Johnbod 02:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete The list provides more context. Piccadilly 17:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep Though it needs expansion and definition. For instance, artists who have had number one albums or singles, or x number of sales. But you'd need to pick a criterion and include it on the category page. BigglesTh9 06:41, 2 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Scotland international footballers born in the Highlands
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Scotland international footballers born in the Highlands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Propose deleting - Overcategorisation. - Dudesleeper · Talk 15:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of football (soccer) related deletions. Dudesleeper · Talk 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge into Category:Scotland international footballers, place of birth is irrelevant. -- Prove It (talk) 15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge into Category:Scotland international footballers - Dividing sportspeople by their place of birth on local levels is excessive. Dr. Submillimeter 17:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - Category:Sportspersons from Edinburgh has been in existence for ages, and is an anomoly within both of its parent cats. --Mais oui! 09:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge Excessive, marginally relevant categorization. Alex Middleton 20:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete There is no need at all to merge it into Category:Scotland international footballers. There are only 4 players in total in Category:Scotland international footballers born in the Highlands. Of these, Colin Hendry, Duncan Shearer and John McGinlay already appear in Category:Scotland international footballers, and Alan Main is not even listed as ever playing as a Scottish International, just an unsourced comment that he apparently made the Scotland squad (but no mention of when) but that he never actually played for Scotland. And so his inclusion would be inappropriate. ♦Tangerines BFC ♦·Talk 10:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per ♦Tangerines BFC ♦. Footballers suffer from category clutter, so it is not desirable to start work on yet another set of categories for them. Piccadilly 17:43, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete way too specific. ArtVandelay13 09:40, 2 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Distillery F.C. players
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated; also, many of the players listed in Category:Distillery F.C. players are also listed in Lisburn Distillery F.C. --Kbdank71 16:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Distillery F.C. players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Merge into Category:Lisburn Distillery F.C. players, convention of Category:Footballers in Northern Ireland by club. -- Prove It (talk) 14:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge per nom Johnbod 17:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Against Merge Club was known as just Distillery F.C. until 1999. None of these players ever played for the modern Lisburn Distillery F.C.. Club not only renamed but also relocated. It would be inaccurate to to include these players in a merged category. Please let common sense prevail and don't just merge for the sake of it. Djln--Djln 22:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Like many clubs it has moved twice (what 3 miles, perhaps?) and has changed its name. But I doubt it told its supporters they should go away as it was now a different club. Are we expected to have pre- & post- Emirates Stadium categories for Arsenal FC? Johnbod 01:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Arsenal stayed within the city of London and kept same name. Distillery moved from one city/town to another and changed its name. Arsenal is not good comparision. Wimbledon F.C. to MK Dons would be closer. Djln--Djln 17:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- According to the club article it was in Lisburn (city council area), at Lambeg, from 1980, before moving within the city, and changing its name, in 1999. Johnbod 17:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Yes but before this, the original Distillery F.C. was founded in 1890 and based in Distillery Street, Belfast, over ten miles away in a different city. All the players currently in this category played for Distillery when it was based in Belfast and therefore it would be inaccurate to describe them as Lisburn Distillery players. Djln --Djln 22:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- So are you saying the category is really Category:Distillery F.C. players, up to their move in 1980? And we need another category for Category:Distillery F.C. players, between the move to Lambeg in 1980 and the name change in 1999 ? Johnbod 23:55, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- No offence mate, but you really need to get a life. Are you just spilting hairs for the sake of it ? The reasons behind the category are clear and simple and you have not offered any good reason to delete it. The club was called Distillery up until 1999 and any player who played for the club before that should be included in this category. Djln --Djln 00:19, 30 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Current members of the United States House of Representatives
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Current members of the United States House of Representatives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - People are generally not categorized on Wikipedia according to status ("active", "current", "former", etc.). The category's contents are already listed at 110th United States Congress. This category therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete sub nom.—Markles 13:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per all the other "current" category deletions. "Current" is difficult to maintain. Doczilla 01:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Strong keep -- a good reference all around, and someone obviously spent much time building this category and spends much time maintaining it. It would be a huge waste to delete it. --172.133.41.211 07:14, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Weak keep and Rename to Category:Current members of the 110th United States House of Representatives. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Two problems: first, technically it's the 110th Congress, not the 110th House of Representatives; second, there's a new Congress every two years, while many Representatives (and Senators) serve for decades. If we categorized them all by the Congresses they've been members of, then my Representative (who was first elected in 1997) would be in Category:Members of the 105th United States Congress, Category:Members of the 106th United States Congress, Category:Members of the 107th United States Congress, etc., up to the 110th. Representative John Conyers has been a member of over 20 Congresses, starting with the 89th, and Senator Robert Byrd has been a member of 25. I think this might safely be termed "category clutter". Xtifr tälk 12:02, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Oh, and "Current members of the 110th..." is redundant at present, and will become meaningless soon enough. Xtifr tälk 20:05, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - "current" categories are by definition problematic and in this instance the existence of a list is superior to cluttering articles with a category. Otto4711 05:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete: redundant to existing lists, templates and series boxes, which are more than adequate to navigation (and are better organized to boot). This category serves little purpose except to increase Wikipedia's biannual maintenance requirements. Xtifr tälk 20:05, 30 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American College of Medical Practice Executives
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:American College of Medical Practice Executives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Delete, almost no chance of growth. contains only American College of Medical Practice Executives. -- Prove It (talk) 13:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete good case of overcategorization. While some of the more notable Professional associations and business organizations do have their own cat, (i.e. Category:American Medical Association, I do not see a case where subcategorization based on smaller organizations would be helpful.-Andrew c 14:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per both above Johnbod 21:24, 26 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Queen consorts
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated to fix pluralization --Kbdank71 16:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Queen consorts to Category:Queens consort
- Nominator's rationale: The usual plural is "queens consort". Psychonaut 11:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment all of the subcats need standardizing. I do not know enough about this topic to make a determination what is the accurate pluralization, but I'd like to note that we have Category:Persian queen consorts, Category:Polish queens consort, and Category:Portuguese queens consorts. Then we have capitalization issues, such as Category:Byzantine Queen consorts. Using google counting, "queen consorts" gets 13,600 hits, "queens consorts" gets 539, and "queens consort" gets 4,700. Also, the majority of the subcats uses "queen consorts", so I'm leaning towards keep (and renaming the few "queens consort", and capital "Queens").-Andrew c 14:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Upmerge to Category:Royal consorts. This is overcategorization based on sex and adds no navigational utility. Otto4711 15:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Upmerge per Otto. btw Queens consort would be correct. DuncanHill 17:07, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Upmerge per Otto. Carlossuarez46 18:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rename per nom Anyone who thinks that there is not a fundamental difference between male and female royal consorts lacks understanding of the way traditional societies function. A male consort is a totally different matter, which is why England had Prince George and Prince Albert, not King [consort] George and King [consort] Albert. Not to mention the Duke of Edinburgh, who is still with us. Ignoring gender here is a politically correct gesture that seeks to override reality. Alex Middleton 20:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rename per nom I strongly agree with Alex that male and female consorts should be kept apart, but these categories do seem in a mess - there is no male equivalent. Most Queens seem to be both in this and in Category:Royal consorts. Also, what is Spouses of heads of states and governments doing in this last-named cat? Johnbod 21:33, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- I have relocated the spouses list to Category:Spouses of national leaders. Otto4711 13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - some digging turns up Category:Kings consort which I have now placed in the parent royal consorts category. I seem to recall that we discussed a Prince consorts category a while back and the outcome was to upmerge it to the royal consorts parent, but I'm not finding the CFD for it. I note that Category:English royal consorts includes both male and female consorts. In the face of the existence of a male equivalent category I'm not sure that merging queens while leaving kings is the best answer and perhaps this nomination should be withdrawn in favor of a fuller discussion of the broader structure. However, I strongly object to the simplistic notion that the upmerge suggestion is motivated by "political correctness." Otto4711 13:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Thanks for that tidying. Since the nom just wanted a rename, I suspect this one will run its course & it would be for others to propose merges. Johnbod 13:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rename per Alex and further improve the consistency of the structure per Otto. Postlebury 14:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rename per nom and strong keep per Johnbod. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rename per nom, Alex etc. Cloachland 20:32, 29 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rename this category and all other categories affected, because there's no reason to have an incorrect category name such as "Queen consorts". At the same time, Do not merge to Royal consorts; if this deserves merging, so does Category:Queens regnant (note — not Queen regnants!) with a category on kings. Nyttend 00:24, 1 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Australian soccer players
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was procedural speedy close, take everything to the DRV (see here). I've copied Blackmissionary's comment over there for him/her, by the way. Daniel 11:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Australian soccer players to Australian football (soccer) players
- Nominator's rationale: Merge - I propose that this category be moved back to Australian football (soccer) players. This category was moved yesterday. No one from the Australian football community knew this was happening, nor was given any chance to comment on it.Tancred 10:42, 26 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Current racehorses
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 16:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Current racehorses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: *Delete - Athletes are generally not sorted according to their status ("active", "retired", etc.), and racehorses should not be an exception. The horses are already in several other racehorse categories, so they can be deleted from this one. Dr. Submillimeter 10:08, 26 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People who were raised as children in the Children of God
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:People who were raised as children in the Children of God to Category:Members of the Children of God
- Nominator's rationale: Merge - People in most other religions and spiritual movements are not sorted according to the religion that was used to bring them up, and it is unclear why this movement should be an exception. The "children" category should be moved into its parent category (no pun intended). (Also note that the parent category is nominated for renaming below.) Dr. Submillimeter 10:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep The communal, removed from parents, nature of this particular group's way of raising children is not unique, but is sufficiently distinctive in Europe & North America to make it a defining characteristic (without going into other more extreme aspects). The topic has been the subject of at least one good tv documentary. Secondly the group seems less effective than most at retaining as members those raised inside it, so the merged category is not appropriate. Even though past members should be included in the "members" cat, I don't think those merely brought within the group by their parents as children should count. Not all the dates are clear in some articles, but for example the parents of Rose McGowan appear to have left the group when she was 5, so she should not be called a "member" in my view. Johnbod 17:35, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - What Johnbod has said about this group could also be said about many other small spiritual or religious groups, such as the Hutterites, the Bruderhof, etc. Why should this category be treated differently? Also, why arbitrarily decide who should be included or excluded based on when their parents left the group? Thjat type of subjectivity leads to edit wars. Dr. Submillimeter 19:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Actually these seem very different: "Bruderhof life is built around the family..." - exactly the opposite in fact. Those two just have their own schools, like, um, Catholics etc. A better comparison might be with early Kibbutzes, but without the persistent accusations and evidence of routine sexual abuse of young children the CoG are famous for. I don't understand the second point. Johnbod 19:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - The comparison to the Kibbutzes is more accurate, but the Hutterites and Bruderhof are still communal peoples. (I have first hand experience and printed references to back me up.) This is beginning to get into a discussion on whether a society is communal enough to have its children in a separate category. Dr. Submillimeter 22:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - Actually, the comparison of the Hutterites and Bruderhof to Catholics is incredibly inaccurate. The Hutterites and Bruderhof live separately from other US/Canadian people in communes or colonies which contain multiple families that live, work, eat, and pray together. It is hardly comparable to Catholicism. Dr. Submillimeter 22:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Or to the CoG I hope. Johnbod 01:51, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete or Merge. Delete since this appears to be over categorization and not a defining characteristic for all of these people. If kept, rename and include everyone who was a member and that was a defining characteristic. Vegaswikian 07:05, 1 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Current and past members of the Children of God
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Current and past members of the Children of God to Category:Members of the Children of God
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - The "current and past" part of the current category name is redundant (no pun intended). Just using "Members of the Children of God" in the future would be sufficient (pun intended). Dr. Submillimeter 09:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rename Categories for organization membership are supposed to by default include both current and former members. So rename per nom. Dugwiki 15:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 17:29, 26 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Current California State Senators
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Suggest merging Category:Current California State Senators to Category:California State Senators
- Nominator's rationale: Merge - People in specific careers are generally not sorted according to status (such as "current", "former", "retired", "dead", etc.). The category should be upmerged accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 09:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge per nom. No current category will make sense when we make the CD. -- Prove It (talk) 13:32, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Neutral Comment: See Category:Current political office-holders.—Markles 13:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - Category:Current political office-holders contains only three subcategories. One is a category for lists that is very appropriate. This category is the second, and I just nominated the third for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 13:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge per nom and rename the target category to lower case "s" in "state" and "senators." Otto4711 15:57, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge and keep the capitalization; the California Sate Senate's own webpages use capitalization of both "s"es. see, e.g., [1]. Carlossuarez46 18:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Merge per nom. Doczilla 01:57, 27 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Previous NCAA bowl game venues
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was upmerge to Category:NCAA bowl game venues --Kbdank71 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Previous NCAA bowl game venues to Category:Former NCAA bowl game venues
- Nominator's rationale: Rename - "Previous" makes little sense when taken out of context. However, "former" makes more , as it more clearly indicates that the venues are no longer used for bowl games. Therefore, I recommend changing the category name. (However, it may or may not be appropriate to delete this category following the criteria for venues at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. I also do not know if separating these venues into "current" (Current NCAA bowl game venues) and "former" is a good idea.) Dr. Submillimeter 09:51, 26 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Current Members of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Current Members of the United States Senate Committee on Armed Services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete - This is the only category for members of a US congressional committee. As these people serve on several committees, having categories for all of these things would be cumbersome (especially since the names are so long). A complete list is already given on United States Senate Committee on Armed Services, and the list is easily reached through the articles on the individual people. The category is unnecessary and should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 09:45, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete committee membership is overcat. Carlossuarez46 18:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete overcategorization. Doczilla 01:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete: not only overcategorization by committee, but also a difficult-to-maintain "current members" cat, which is another thing we generally try to avoid. (If kept, at least fix the capitalization.) Xtifr tälk 11:00, 30 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Batman actors
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was deleted and salted --Kbdank71 15:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Batman actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete and salt this recreation of category that has been deleted at least twice. Yet another performer by performance category. Yet another category created by what has to be yet another sockpuppet of User:EJBanks/User:Creepy Crawler/User:Fatone411/User:BarackObamaFan/User:Batman fan/User:TheJediCouncil. He has been permanently banned under several names for, among many other things, stubbornly recreating articles and categories. Doczilla 07:13, 26 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:NRK
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:NRK to Category:Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation
- Nominator's rationale: Prove It (talk) 20:43, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Oppose. It is usually known as the NRK, which is also more practical as a category name. Compare Category:BBC. Kristinewes 15:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Moved from speedy. Conscious 06:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Support. We avoid abbreviations in category names since the name of the category should clearly identify the contents. Is this about Norrköping Airport? How about the NUVEEN INSURED NEW YORK TAX-FREE ADVANTAGE MUNICIPAL FUND which has this as its trading symbol which happens to match the symbol for 'Northern Rock.' which is on a different exchange? Or the common abbreviation for Neurospecific Receptor Kinase? Vegaswikian 19:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Avoid abbreviations? Obviously untrue. NRK is, like the BBC in Britain, the public service broadcaster of Norway, member of the EBU and employs thousands of people. Your comparisons are ridiculous. NRK refers to the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation and nothing else (surely there is an obscure airport somewhere whose name consists of the letters B, B and C as well, but that doesn't mean the BBC category has to be moved). The NRK is always known under the abbreviation, and the three television channels and the 14 radio channels does not use the full name, but rather the abbreviation, in their names. Kristinewes 20:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Note: The Norwegian edition uses NRK as the category name. Kristinewes 20:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep I'm having difficulty in imagining the actual circumstances in which confsion would occur. Johnbod 02:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep per Johnbod. Postlebury 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Rename - per the examples provided by Vegaswikian. Is it likely that someone is going to confuse this with something else known as NRK? I have no idea. Is it possible? Certainly. The likelihood that someone will confuse "BBC" with something else has no bearing on whether this category should be renamed. Otto4711 19:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep. I can't imagine anything NRK / Norsk rikskringkasting can be confused with, and NRK is the official name. If we find something highly notable that can be confused with NRK, then we'll have a new situation, but let's cross that bridge when we get to it. Precedent seems to be established by the similar British and Spanish material, see Category:British television networks and Category:Spanish television networks. Valentinian T / C 22:34, 27 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Portmanteaus
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Category:Portmanteaus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:WINAD, this category describe the word Moez talk 05:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - This is the categorization of subjects with names that are portmanteaus. However, the articles, which range from infotainment to smog to snuba, are otherwise unrelated. This is a variation on the categorization of unrelated subjects with shared names, a form of overcategorization, and it should therefore be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 18:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete and delete subcategories as this is a variation on the categorization of unrelated subjects with shared names. Alex Middleton 20:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete - I was looking forward to seeing some famous suitcases. Johnbod 21:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Strong keep -- this category contain nearly 170 entries (along with 7 subcategories) and you all claim that this is overcategorization? A very diligent user obviously spent a lot of time building this category, and it should remain. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but nevertheless it does contain many categories that are entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia because they link words/vocabulary in a historical and sociological sense (not to mention the history of language, neologisms, and word coinage). Frankly, it would be rather rather moronic to delete a category of this scope and size. I ask you all to kindly reconsider. --User:Wassermann
Invalid "vote" from an IP used for block evasion. ElinorD (talk) 00:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Very diligent people spend time creating articles about their bands, but that is not an argument for keeping their work. Anyway, most of these articles are not linked in a "historical" or "sociological" sense; many are in fact not technically portmanteaus at all. —Centrx→talk • 23:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Weak keep The topic is interesting, but I cannot deny that besides the superficial linguistic connection, articles about very unrelated topics will be grouped together. However, some of these articles are about words or phrases, and I think in those instances it is entirely appropriate to group articles based on notable linguistic qualities (also, other categories such as slang and neologism are similarly helpful).-Andrew c 00:15, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment There is a huge list, which has been transferred to Wictionary. Inevitably, it is up for deletion there, the nominator saying that the (local) category can do the job! here Johnbod 01:58, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment - Wictionary is really a more appropriate place for lexicology information. Using the Wikipedia category system for lexicology is inappropriate. Dr. Submillimeter 09:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is not a lexicological database. Postlebury 14:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Delete Non-defining coincidental connection between otherwise unrelated entries. Piccadilly 17:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Comment suggest to wiktionary... looks like it might belong there. 70.55.86.129 04:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep This is a worthwhile high-level categorization of categories related in an orthogonal manner. It needs diffusion of articles to more specific categories however (or removal of articles of not appropriate). ((catdiffuse)) could be added. — Jonathan Bowen 08:59, 30 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Strong delete all Nothing to do with the purpose of an encyclopedia. Dominictimms 17:43, 1 July 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Template documentation
- The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Template documentation to Category:Template documentations
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, Most (all?) categories are plural or at least collective. —Markles 02:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep Documentation is the collective form. I have never heard it pluralized as "documentations," nor does that form appear in any dictionary I own (admittedly, all are American English).-choster 06:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep Don't worry, British English is the same. Johnbod 21:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Keep The current name is correct. Postlebury 14:11, 27 June 2007 (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 appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.