The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:50, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Innuendo songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Without a definition, this category is a bit ambiguous and unclear. Since the only article included is "Chocolate Salty Balls", I think it becomes clearer that it's intended for songs that use sexual innuendo of some sort. If so, this is completely POV. How can we determine what is innuendo and what was a genuine use of ambiguous terminology in a song? Given the right mindset, any song can become sexually suggestive. ("Twinkle Twinkle Little Star", if you know what I mean. Ow ow ow!!) Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:43, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This category definitely deserves a deletion nomination, and now that GO's given it one, I suggest we all rise to the occasion and give it the thrust it needs to send it on its way. Grutness...wha? 00:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete send it to pound me in the ass prison. JuJube (talk) 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horror film directors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete categorizing film directors by genre is in most if not all instances overcategorization akin to performer by performance. Film directors can and do work in multiple genres over the course of a career and if we established categories for all of them it would lead to tremendous category clutter. Taking one example, if we categorized James Whale by every genre he directed, he'd have categories for war films, drama films, mystery films, crime dramas, films noir, thriller films, musical films, anti-war films, costume dramas, adventure films, historical fiction films, biographical films, and others in addition to the horror film category. Similar category clutter would accumulate on pretty much every other director. Similar to the recently deleted Action film actors among other similar deleted categories. Otto4711 (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Otto sets out the rationale well here. Numerous similar categories for both directors and actors have been deleted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:41, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: no consensus. Kbdank71 18:44, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culinary Heritage of Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• nn encyclopedia website spamming category. article not like this website. --Wingfilee (talk) 20:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete needless category for 1 article. [Premature] Occuli (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The category now has 20 articles again. It was temporarily empty because of its removal from articles by the nominator, Wingfilee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is now indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry. For the merits, compare Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culinary Heritage of Switzerland and Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 December 12#Template:Kulinarischeserbe.ch.  Sandstein  20:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify The list is quasi-official, but a list at the article Culinary Heritage of Switzerland is enough - there isn't one yet. Who knew Ovaltine was Swiss! Johnbod (talk) 23:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The category has the advantage of being accessible through the articles themselves. Also, categories and lists are not mutually exclusive. If a list is created, it should be a standalone list, because the encyclopedia has some 400 entries.  Sandstein  09:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes if the list reaches 400. At the moment we only seem to have 20 articles, and given the database is online there seems little point in adding hundreds of redlinks. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A list of Swiss food specialities in general might be useful, but its scope would go beyond this database (including e.g. wines) and certainly have many redlinks. But having a list, either in the article or standalone, does not make this category superfluous.  Sandstein  13:46, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Swiss cuisine. My problem with the category as a category is expressed below. Johnbod (talk) 14:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- This is a legitimate category. Lists are useful in this context only to identify missing articles that need to be written. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is that while it may be defining for say Tilsit cheese (not that Tilsit is anywhere near Switzerland), I doubt if it is for meringue etc. Johnbod (talk) 13:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Since no one else seems to want to jump in, I thought I'd again point out the obvious: a food being mentioned in a cookbook an inventory of culinary heritage is not defining for that food. This seems like a no-brainer to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• True, but this is not a cookbook, but an inventory of the "culinary heritage of Switzerland", so it's more something like the equivalent of a register of historic buildings (of which we do have categories) for food. Actually, I've now added it to the parent Category:Heritage registers of Switzerland.  Sandstein  07:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Cookbook, inventory. The same principles apply, really. (I was using the term "cookbook" flippantly, in case you didn't know. Sorry if I offended you in that.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:50, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: no consensus to delete; rename for now to Category:Boxers who declined to defend their title, but this rename should not preclude a future re-nomination for deletion or renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Boxers who have ducked mandatory challengers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Overcategorization, surely? Also seems to imply cowardice. Might be suitable for a list if this is a recognized phenomenon involving more than two boxers. — CharlotteWebb 20:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It is clearly a NPOV violation. Rvk41 (talk) 20:45, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Consider Rename This is a strong defining characteristic of a boxer, being stripped of a title due to failure to comply with rules requiring that he face a challenger in order to retain his crown. Sure, this is a negative, but anytime this happens, the title loss is well-publicized and supported by reliable and verifiable sources. While small now, this covers scores of boxers. The term "ducking" is a standard in the industry, as evidenced by the World Boxing Council's use of the term in listing "Purse Offer Rule, to avoid the procedures of the past in boxing when champions would 'duck' the most meritable challenger" on its list of "Rules that have changed the History of Boxing" (see here). While the title is accurate, I would support considering a new title. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are only two people in this category. Do you know if this has this happened more than twice? — CharlotteWebb 15:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- There is a head note that deals with the scope of the category. Possibly this should refer specifically to the World Boxing Council. It is thus not a POV category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:40, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Is this category related to Category:Presidents who have ducked flying shoes? Cgingold (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not defining. I was considering a rename to something like Category:Boxers who relinquished their titles, but this is apparently not correct based on the introduction. If kept maybe a redo in the introduction and a rename to Category:Boxers who failed to defend their title would work without the POV issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (voted above) How about Category:Boxers who declined to defend their title (or "refused"). It has nothging to do with the "flying shoes" incident. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:00, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, what would you say to Category:Boxers who have ducked flying gloves? :)

• In all seriousness, I think your suggestion of Category:Boxers who declined to defend their title may be exactly what's needed. Cgingold (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: keep current name. (Deletion was mentioned but not discussed; it could be in a further nomination.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BBC people to Category:British Broadcasting Corporation people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination found doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename If renamed it should be to Category:British Broadcasting Corporation people - correct corporate name. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing vote The outcome of this should be the same as in the nomination for BBC (below).Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No reason to rename has been offered and nobody talks about the BBC in full - it would be absurdly bloated. Compare all the categories for NBC which use the short form. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose match title of parent category and article, one of the world's best-know initialisms. Alansohn (talk) 15:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Match outcome below Johnbod (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but how can there be this cat page and not the rather recently deleted Category:Canadian Broadcasting Corporation people?? (will search for the discussion link [- needs to be a search engine running for this kind of search]

here it is -> Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_24#Category:Canadian_Broadcasting_Corporation_people) Mayumashu (talk) 10:55, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: keep current name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:BBC to Category:British Broadcasting Corporation

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Technical nomination found as a speedy doing cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• The correct title is British Broadcasting Corporation, not Company. I would say support, but I note that the main article is actually at BBC, not British Broadcasting Corporation. Should the category follow the same convention? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally the article and category names match. Exceptions are common when the article name is an abbreviation or is considered ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename If renamed, it should be to Category:British Broadcasting Corporation - correct corporate name. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • vote changed. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No reason to rename has been offered and the current name seems much better. Compare other major networks ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS which all use the short form. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, keep abbreviated form to match article, or rename both of them, starting with the article. — CharlotteWebb 22:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per CW (x2!) Lugnuts (talk) 09:50, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and match title of parent article, one of the world's best-known initialisms. Alansohn (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 23:29, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The trend has been for some while that category page names be more spelled out (here literally) whereas article page names are to reflect what is the most common appellation for something or someone regardless of language formality Mayumashu (talk) 10:51, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is here, as Vegas's original nom showed, the initials are better understood than the full name. Johnbod (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: Proposal withdrawn by nominator. Non-admin close. Cgingold (talk) 12:41, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Waste power stations to Category:Incinerators

Nominator's rationale: Same things from the technical point of view. Beagel (talk) 18:13, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. They are not the same thing. Category:Waste power stations might be a sub category of Category:Incinerators but to imply that there is no difference is incorrect. Both may be classified as incinerators, but not all incinerators produce power and can be called power stations which need to roll up into the other power stations. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Actually my point was exactly this that up to now most of waste power stations are incinerators (including all power stations listed now in this category), not vice versa. They may remain separate categories and int this case Category:Waste power stations should be a subcategory of Category:Incinerators. However, in this case lot of entities in the Category:Incinerators category should be re-categorized to the Category:Waste power stations, which I feel would be probably somehow not the best categorization. If yoy say thta this would be ok, I will accept this solution. Beagel (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any technologies that convert waste to power that don't use incineration? If there are, adding Category:Incinerators would not be accurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is what Waste-to-energy says. However, these technologies are not for direct power production, but for production of fuels, which among other uses may be burnt later for power production. These entities in the Category:Waste power stations are incinerators by my understanding.Beagel (talk) 21:25, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Vegaswikian's reasoning. Not all incinerators generate power. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only some incinerators are harmessed to generate power. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but all waste power stations are incinerators. Proposal was to merge Category:Waste power stations into the Category:Incinerators, not vice versa.Beagel (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is why I would make it a subcategory rather then merge. It makes sense to group these and the number of these is likely to grow. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in reviewing the contents of the categories, the articles in Category:Incinerators are primarily for plants where incineration is the primary purpose as part of a waste management process. Category:Waste power stations focuses on plants that use waste to generate energy via Waste-to-energy, with waste management as a side benefit. These do not appear to be the same, even if there is overlap. Alansohn (talk) 15:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdrawn. Listed Category:Waste power stations as a sub-category of Category:Incinerators per Vegaswikian. However, I have a question: if incinerator produces electric power, should it be categorized in the Category:Incinerators or in the Category:Waste power stations? Beagel (talk) 16:59, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Only in Category:Waste power stations. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: no consensus; broader nomination would seem to be desired for action to be taken on these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:English people of Cypriot descent to Category:British people of Cypriot descent

Nominator's rationale: This is overcategorisation, plus for naturalised citizens it's easier to verify that they're British than it is to verify that they consider themselves to be English. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• comment This needs a more general discussion. There are 46 other such English people of fooian descent categories and also similar Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Ireland people of fooian descent xxx categories. This seems to be a part of the UK country separatism issue. Hmains (talk) 17:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've just noticed that too. In this case, I think that a single "British" category is preferable. The current English category includes Stelios Haji-Ioannou, who is described as British and not English in his article. This seems to be the case with most of the category's contents. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Cat Stevens in contrast does seem to be aptly described as 'English of Cypriot descent' as he was born and brought up in London (and so would be entitled to an English passport if such a thing existed). Occuli (talk) 20:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge this (and others) to British category(ies). There is no means of defining nationality between the four countries of UK. It is usually better to reserve the designation "English" for those of indigenous descent. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• What about Fatima Whitbread who represented England at the 1982 Commonwealth Games – see Athletics at the 1982 Commonwealth Games? Or someone who is descended both from indigenous English and Cypriot? Occuli (talk) 11:24, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Ideally we'd be able to verify whether each person in the category is English or not, but remember that all English people are British, whereas the opposite is not the case so I think a single British category is less problematic. I would also argue that the number of people falling into such a small intersection as English-Cypriot (defined in terms of dual ancestry or competing for and England team) means that it represents overcategorisation. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. As per Hmains, the idea that this nomination is based on may or may not be true but there needs to be a far more general discussion before we should change all category pages that refer to English, Northern Irish, Scottish, or Welsh 'nationality'. The few individuals here whose being identified as English is unclear, such as the apparent case with Stelois Haji-Ioannou, should be categorised as 'British people of Cypriot descent'. Mayumashu (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:27, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List of media covering a topic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Suggest Deletion - I was just about to take this to Speedy to pluralize it, but after looking at the contents (a single article) I'm pretty doubtful about retaining it at all. However, if somebody sees potential there -- and can come up with a better name -- might reconsider. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Was an attempt to move a burgeoning list of films,books,etc from Huntington's disease article - anticipating many more, and not being able to find a category to fit. Had an idea that this would be useful for ancillary articles for most topics, but would support delete since it doesn't seem to be adopted. LeeVJ (talk) 11:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC) (Note: LeeVJ is the category's creator - CG)[reply]
• Delete; we do have Category:Media by topic which should serve just as well. Her Pegship (tis herself) 15:58, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. Cgingold (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:26, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Culture-related lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Merge to the parent, Category:Cultural lists, as there is no discernible distinction between them. Notified creator with ((subst:cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 03:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Johnbod (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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 following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an 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 discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 18:42, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:16th century Spanish people to Category:16th-century Spanish people

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per discussion on the CfD talk page, these should have the '-'. I'll slowly be adding more, if anyone wants to add more feel free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:23, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per discussion - as adjectivals they all need to be hyphenated. Cgingold (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as hyphenated adjectives. I imagine these could probably qualify as speedy renames under simple "spelling errors"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered that, but since there will be a number of these, I felt that bringing it here was the better choice. But since you brought it up, I'll wait on the others and if this discussion appears to support this change, I'll to the others as speedies. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment whether correct English syntax or not, all of the subcats of Category:People by century are named without a hyphen and all the subcats of these subcats also. So the WP standard has been to use a space here. Maybe editors had and have a reason for this consistent pattern? Hmains (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt it. I'd be hard-pressed to even think of a good reason for doing so. Chances are they just didn't know how to form an adjectival. Or am I missing some obvious reason? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:39, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. For a 2½-year-old discussion on this issue, see here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment The discussion offers many reason why this change is a bad idea. I wonder if many more categories were nominated at once, this would attract more attention and negative recommendations. A test case many not be the best way to handle such things. Hmains (talk) 03:18, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not terribly convinced that any of the provided reasons in the old discussion are good ones. For one, the search mechanism on WP can now handle the omission/addition of a hyphen and still find what you're looking for just as well as with/without the hyphen. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. 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.